Members of the subsequent WorldCon? Why not CURRENT and subsequent, considering the business being voted on was originated at the current WorldCon?
Because the proposal only replaces the second stage of the current ratification system, not the first. When adding changes, I try to apply the minimum change possible, changing only one variable at a time if possible. Also, the logistics of submitting a constitutional amendment to the members of the same Worldcon whose business meeting passed it out are troubling. It would require a Worldcon that is over to go back to its members for the vote. Based on my own experiences, after a Worldcon ends is a terrible time to try and do anything else because most of your people points are gone. Much easier to put the responsibility onto the subsequent Worldcon, which will be obliged to send ballots to its members for Hugo Awards and Site Selection anyway.
Interpretive statement....
I agree that there needs to be some sort of, as you put it, "plain English" statement. On the other hand, we don't have any equivalent to the California Legislative Analyst's office (the non-partisan agency responsible for explaining the effect of any ballot proposal), and I expect the squabbles over what's "plain English" might be a problem. Remember that one person's plain statement of facts is another person's opinion. So I'm leery of trying to write such a requirement into the Constitution.
It would be a foolish proposer, indeed, who submitted a proposal without their own opening statement of what the intent of the motion is. Such intent statements, which usually are in the minutes, form part of the legislative history by giving people an idea of what was supposed to happen. This is useful when there are multiple conflicting interpretations of the same words. Fans being the way they are, if they can find a nonsensical interpretation, they'll assume that it must be the one that must be followed. *sigh*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-06-01 09:25 pm (UTC)Because the proposal only replaces the second stage of the current ratification system, not the first. When adding changes, I try to apply the minimum change possible, changing only one variable at a time if possible. Also, the logistics of submitting a constitutional amendment to the members of the same Worldcon whose business meeting passed it out are troubling. It would require a Worldcon that is over to go back to its members for the vote. Based on my own experiences, after a Worldcon ends is a terrible time to try and do anything else because most of your people points are gone. Much easier to put the responsibility onto the subsequent Worldcon, which will be obliged to send ballots to its members for Hugo Awards and Site Selection anyway.
I agree that there needs to be some sort of, as you put it, "plain English" statement. On the other hand, we don't have any equivalent to the California Legislative Analyst's office (the non-partisan agency responsible for explaining the effect of any ballot proposal), and I expect the squabbles over what's "plain English" might be a problem. Remember that one person's plain statement of facts is another person's opinion. So I'm leery of trying to write such a requirement into the Constitution.
It would be a foolish proposer, indeed, who submitted a proposal without their own opening statement of what the intent of the motion is. Such intent statements, which usually are in the minutes, form part of the legislative history by giving people an idea of what was supposed to happen. This is useful when there are multiple conflicting interpretations of the same words. Fans being the way they are, if they can find a nonsensical interpretation, they'll assume that it must be the one that must be followed. *sigh*