|Joel Uckelman on 14 Dec 2000 01:01:22 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: [nomic] Question: should there be a proposal for my membership on the web page|
[see subject] It's a Motion, not a Proposal, and yes, it would be on the page if I were caught up. Since The Kid didn't ask for unanimous consent, it will have to go to a vote in four days. Since there may not be much on which to vote this time (I'm not sure on this, I think there are some unrecognized Proposals), the turnout might be low enough that we wouldn't have quorum, and the Motion would fail. In order to avoid that, I'm making a Motion to Add Feyd as a Player, and reqesting unanimous consent (and hereby recognizing that motion). Since there really shouldn't be able to be two live Motions regarding adding the same player, and it seems like unanimous consent should be requestable until it would conflict with voting, I propose the following, entitled "UC and Motion Fix": 1. Amend R230/3 to read as follows: "An Agent introducing a Approvable Motion may request unanimous consent at the time of its introduction, or until such time as the granting of unanimous consent could still occur prior to the nweek's voting, unless the Rules explicitly prohibit it. N-unanimous consent on a Motion is granted if no eligible voters object to the Motion within time N after the Motion is recognized." 2. Create a new Rule entitled "Motion Duplication" which reads: "The recognition by any Officer of any Motion which would have the same effect another live Motion is prohibited." -- J.