Nate, Baker , Officers
I'm going to send this round the officers for their views on procedure.
On 11 Sep 2010, at 21:20, Nate Hayes wrote:
If you would be willing to change the proposal from "discontinuous" to
"defined and continuous," then I would proffer an ethusiastic second to
the motion. Otherwise, I fear my vote would be a reluctant "no" if this
change is not made.
It seems to me that under Roberts' rules there is a tailor-made way to
handle this. You propose the above change as an Amendment. You will
obviously kick off the discussion with your reasons for the change.
Whichever way the vote goes on that, I will accept the democratic result
and would be happy for one of us to be proposer and the other be second on
the (amended or unamended) motion. Will you agree the same?
(I'm not sure: if the amendment goes Nate's way, does he become the owner
of the amended motion?)
Regards
John