Objection to Consideration is allowed only on main motions. It is never allowed on subsidiary motions. That's because you can get to where you want on a procedural motion a lot faster by simply voting it down.
But for the rest: I think I like the idea of a certain minimum number of co-sponsors guaranteeing a motion can come up for a guaranteed minimum amount of debate. Possibly a mixed case, whereby anything that gets less than that minimum could still make it to the Preliminary Business Meeting, but would be subject to OTC as currently applies.
I think 50 is a good number. It would have been about 1% of LoneStarCon's attendance (a smaller percentage of the total membership). It would complicate the Business Meeting's life by having to more carefully validate co-sponsors. (Currently we tend to take people at their word.) But it might at least get people a way to be able to say they got what they consider a fair chance.
no subject
But for the rest: I think I like the idea of a certain minimum number of co-sponsors guaranteeing a motion can come up for a guaranteed minimum amount of debate. Possibly a mixed case, whereby anything that gets less than that minimum could still make it to the Preliminary Business Meeting, but would be subject to OTC as currently applies.
I think 50 is a good number. It would have been about 1% of LoneStarCon's attendance (a smaller percentage of the total membership). It would complicate the Business Meeting's life by having to more carefully validate co-sponsors. (Currently we tend to take people at their word.) But it might at least get people a way to be able to say they got what they consider a fair chance.