[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Proposed roadmap

From: Alex Hudson
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Proposed roadmap
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:35:08 +0100

On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 13:19 +0100, John Seago wrote:
> Having had over thirty years experience of meeting at National level I have 
> to tell you that not only are amendments acceptable, they are one of the 
> usual methods of proceeding.

In general, I definitely agree. For all normal proposals, amendments
must be possible. But for constitutional proposals, we have to make sure
they are published for a good period of time, and I don't see why
amended proposals should be different. But, as I said, this is my
personal view.

> Perhaps then the way forward is to, (once all are agreed in which fora/list 
> discussion takes place), publish proposals as soon as they are formulated, 
> to publish counter proposals or amendments as soon as they are formulated, 
> discuss the merits of each and as the deadline for notice of the meeting 
> approaches each party holding whatever view will have a chance to see what 
> the proposals and views of others are/is.

Yeah, I think that's absolutely right, and was honestly what I tried to
do last time - my proposals were available before the deadline. Whether
they were available for long enough - I can't remember what period they
were - I don't know; I guess they were not.

Thinking about it, we need to do this for the next AGM now, really. I'll
get on it.

> However there has to be an agreed format for all motions, if the AFFS
> does not wish to allow amendment, (even by the Proposer or Seconder),
> then that is a matter which will have to be discussed and voted upon

Yup. I think it's an issue which needs to be addressed. I don't think
it's a burning issue, though.

> As I proposed the amendment at last years AGM, I should point out that 
> there were a number of ways available to me of approaching the motion put 
> by Alex, all of which can best be described as 'Nuclear Options'.

Well, I think this is what Tom was talking about, when we get to AGM we
should have proposals for which support is generally well known. Those
proposals should then stand or fall on whether or not the proposers can
convince the members of their usefulness. Nuclear options shouldn't be
needed; I guess sometimes people will disagree on whether or not
something is the right way to proceed, and debate is the right way to
handle that.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]