Re: A proposal for the next motion
Ralph Baker Kearfott schrieb:
This has not yet become a formal, official motion, so positive
suggestions concerning word-smithing are welcome. Would cutting it up
into smaller parts help? Do you have specific wording that
you would substitute?
I made lots of comments further down in my mail; indeed, all the
comments that I found relevant in two readings of the proposal.
(But with further discussion, there might be more....)
Cutting things up is sensible only if the discussion shows that part is
controversion but other parts are not.
In this case, the uncontroversial parts should be voted upon separately,
and the others with a 3 weeks time lag, so that controversial discussion
can go on while the other part is already voted upon. Once the first
vote is closed, the second can then begin without further delay.
Again, this has not even yet entered
the formal discussion period, since it has not been seconded. It
isn't even clear that it's been officially tendered as a motion
yet, since the Subject: line only specifies "A proposal..." I'm
hoping we can work together to get this right; then, the discussion
period and voting period will be smooth.
Baker
P.S. I note that this motion also seems to be guidance, rather than
actual document wording, since it has not been identified with
particular paragraphs or sections of the standing document.
If so, we would probably be wasting effort to criticize it down
to the last word. Perhaps John can clarify whether or not
he wishes to use wording in this motion as text in the actual
document.
I advocate word-smithing only up to the point where the proposal
is fully clear and has no implicit side effects that could irritate
voters. In my opinion, formulating the precise text of the final
document is a task that can be left to much later in the process.
Arnold Neumaier