6.5.6 as originally drafted merely paralleled the Site Selection language, and I'm not tremendously wrapped up in its specifics. For instance, it probably makes more sense to include the results in the same PR that includes the WSFS Constitution. That I can fix.
I specifically noted (comment 8) exactly what you said: amendments can only be ratified as submitted, rather than having their scope narrowed. Given that the point of the proposal is to give the membership as a whole the ability to vote on amendments, that's inevitable. There's no way you can combine popular ratification with "partial ratification," which is the current practice. I leave it to those who more passionately believe that the entire membership, including the supporting members, and not just the 100 or so who attend the Business Meeting, should have a say in the constitutional amendment process to argue the merits of the case.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 05:32 pm (UTC)I specifically noted (comment 8) exactly what you said: amendments can only be ratified as submitted, rather than having their scope narrowed. Given that the point of the proposal is to give the membership as a whole the ability to vote on amendments, that's inevitable. There's no way you can combine popular ratification with "partial ratification," which is the current practice. I leave it to those who more passionately believe that the entire membership, including the supporting members, and not just the 100 or so who attend the Business Meeting, should have a say in the constitutional amendment process to argue the merits of the case.