Re: Motion P1788/0022.01: ContinuityBit -- discussion perios begins
> From: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "<rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Zuras Intervals
> <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "<stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Motion P1788/0022.01: ContinuityBit -- discussion perios begins
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:14:33 +0000
>
> Baker,
>
> On Sep 12, 2010, at 9:02 PM, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
>
> > Can someone help me at this point? If John concurs, can this be counted
> > as a friendly amendment, and we continue the discussion on the
> > amended motion without resetting the clock?
> Yes, but I gather from a couple of John's messages that he might
> not accept it as a friendly amendment.
>
> If John does not accept this as an amendment, my interpretation
> of our Policies and Procedures is that you table M0022.01, open
> a 3 week discussion period on this amendment (I suggest
> M0022.01.Amend001.01, to allow room for growth). At the end of
> 3 weeks discussion of the amendment, we enter a 3 week voting
> period on the amendment.
>
> I see nothing in our P&P that provides for any shortened process.
>
> George
George is correct.
However, Baker is also correct.
If John accepts this, that is the very definition of
a friendly amendment. And John's motion can continue
as if it were written that way originally with no
further comment. Although you might roll the name to
M0022.02 to avoid confusion.
If John does not accept it, then I believe George's
scenario works for an email group under the P&P.
However, I think I would give the chairman leave to
judge whether an amendment requires the full 3 weeks
for discussion or some shorter period. As this is as
much an amendment about style (how a thing is named)
as it is about substance (how a thing is dealt with),
perhaps Baker might judge it to require less time to
consider. I'd leave it up to your judgement.
BTW George, your M0022.01.Amend001.01 nomenclature
sounds as good as any. But let me suggest slightly
shortening it to M0022.01.A001.01 for two reasons.
First, it will fit better in the table of motions.
And, since amendments may have amendments as in
M0022.01.A001.01.A001.01 & amended motions may
themselves be further amended as in
M0022.02.A002.01, the entire tree of possible names
may be explored. So some short notation in analogy
to a hierarchical file system is best.
Your nomenclature works for this.
Yours,
Dan
P.S. - Now that I think about it, in the 7 years we
worked on 754 we had some motions with many amendments
but never as many as 9. So something like M0022.A1
might suffice. Your call.