On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:04, Bret Busby wrote: > The agenda above, for the SGM, does not specify whether the proposed > changes are to be voted on, individually, eg "Motion: that section x of > the constitution be amended by..., and that section y of the constituion > be amended by ..., so as to accommodate the former amendment", or that > the constitution is to be changed by a single vote; eg "Motion: that the > constitution be replaced with the proposed amended constitution version > 6". Although I am not chairing the meeting (so am not speaking with absolute authority) - a common, sensible and generally agreeable way to do these things (where you have people there) is to ask for a vote on the entire document, and if it doesn't pass, then break it up into individual motions. Note that individual motions will take a LONG time and cause much pain. My advice is, if putting in a proxy, and if you object to one of the constitution changes, is to vote against the entire thing, and then indicate the parts which you have an objection to (i.e. would vote against). This way, the person acting on your behalf has clear documentation of your wishes. Indeed, I have been involved with meetings where motions (and decisions) are placed on the agenda and the decision is taken as given unless the item is starred for discussion (this is how you get through 400+ pages of agenda in less than 4 hours). In this scenario, the meeting starts with asking if anybody has any extra items to be starred. I just haven't brainwashed Pia enough yet to do this for the AGM :) hope this clarifies, -- Stewart Smith <stewart@linux.org.au> Linux Australia Inc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part