Re: [s-d] [s-b] amending: more elections

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

> uh, I missed that. Can you give me some more pointers ?
> Oh, and don't worry, if you vote against I'm not going to take it
> personally. If it fails... we'll just keep the current version. No big deal.

::grin:: and if I vote against it it wouldn't be me taking it
personally, either...

It seems to me that you could make your changes and still leave the
"elections" rule exactly as it is now.  If that was what you wanted.

After all, if I get your drift, you are interested in changing when
elections happen and who can start them - not the process of elections
yourself.

In fact it would make your proposal very simple indeed - just add a
new rule to the effect that the administrator must start an election
process when he gets a nomination.  The "posts" rule has a
low-precedence clause so you wouldn't even need to amend it.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss