From tomchristmas at progsoc.org Sun Nov 19 19:03:58 2017 From: tomchristmas at progsoc.org (Tomislav Bozic) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 19:03:58 +1100 Subject: [ProgSoc] Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017 Message-ID: Hello ProgSoc, I've just been spending a lazy Sunday afternoon going through our Constitution[1] and have come up with a bunch of amendments that I think warrant consideration and/or discussion on this here mailing list! Indulge me, if you will, as I present to you my proposals and a brief explanation as to the reasoning behind each one. == Proposed Amendment 1 (Definitions) == Under Section 2: Replace: * University, UTS: The University of Technology, Sydney. * Union: UTS Union. with * University, UTS: The University of Technology Sydney. * Union: ActivateUTS (formerly known as UTS Union). -- According to their 2016 Annual Report[2], on the 11th of November, 2016, UTS Union Limited changed their legal name to ActivateUTS. Since it's their actual legal name, rather than just their trading name, I think we need to amend this definition, if for no other reason than to not confuse future members who might not know what "UTS Union" is. However, since we are only amending the definition of the word 'Union', there's no need to change every instance of the word. Besides, they may be called "ActivateUTS", but they still ARE the Union of UTS. Their purpose has not changed, just their name. Also, UTS' full name has been comma-free for many years now. Wouldn't hurt to remove the comma between 'Technology' and 'Sydney'. == Proposed Amendment 2 (Membership) == Replace clause 4.2.5: Annual subscription is dated for the calendar year. Memberships will reset on 1st February of each year, with a 1 month grace period to cover the annual subscriptions. with: Membership shall commence on the date of payment of subscription. The duration of membership shall be twelve months. -- Prior to 2015, there was never an explicit definition of the duration of a membership; when it commenced and when it concluded. It was merely implied. Because they were not aware of the rules governing membership duration due to them not being explicit, previous Executives simply chose to ignore the definition and come up with their own, non-Constitutional definition, namely that all memberships that had not already been renewed, or if they were not brand new membership acquired earlier in the year, would expire at the AGM in March of that year. So, in an attempt to make it explicit, clause 4.2.5. was inserted at the March 2015 AGM. However, I believe that -- with all due respect -- this definition of a membership sucks. I mean, it's just blatantly unfair! What if someone renewed their membership in December? Does it mean it only lasts for three months? So, I want to bring back the original, fair and equitable definition that lasts exactly for one year. But this time, I want to make it explicit. It's really not that hard to enforce, especially with modern technology...such as online electronic spreadsheets! When recording current memberships in the spreadsheet, the Secretary need only have two extra columns: date of registration and date of expiry. Say we got a new member today. Then the Secretary would record 2017-11-19 under date of registration and 2018-11-19 under date of expiry. Then, come meeting time -- AGM or otherwise -- when we need to determine who are current financial members for voting purposes, we simply look at the date of expiry column for each person at the meeting. Too easy! == Proposed Amendment 3 (Executive Term Length) == Delete clause 5.1.3.1: The exemption from this clause is the 2015 term of office, due to the change in Annual General Meeting dates, will be the period of March 2015 to October 2015. -- The time has come and gone. Let's delete it. Next! == Proposed Amendment 4 (Executive Voting) == Delete clause 5.1.7.1: In the case of a hung vote or tie, the President shall have a deciding ruling on the vote. -- You know, I pointed out to the 2014 Executive, who put forth the last set of amendments, that this clause would be completely redundant, since a hung vote or tie would be impossible in a five-member Executive, which, let's be honest, they were going to get that amendment as well[3], since all potential voices of reason and dissent by that stage had disappeared or had otherwise been suppressed (but that's another story). But did they listen to me? Remarkably (not really), the motion to insert this clause had passed. Let's fix this. And in any case, how the Executive decide matters in Executive meetings should be entirely at their discretion. == Proposed Amendment 5 (Key Holders) == Delete clauses 5.1.4 and 5.1.5: 5.1.4 Make up to four Key-Holder Appointments, each of which must be assigned an administrative role as determined by a vote of the Executive. 5.1.5 Review, remove and add Key-Holder Appointments from time to time, subject to 5.1.4. Renumber clauses 5.1.6, 5.1.7 (and 5.1.7.1. if not deleted) to 5.1.4., 5.1.5. (and 5.1.5.1 if not deleted) -- Thing is, ProgSoc doesn't have its own room anymore. At least not with one that requires access to it with a key. Back when we were in Building 10, the ProgSoc room was behind two doors that needed to be unlocked with a key loaned to ProgSoc members by the FEIT Dean's Unit. Keys were issued to Executive members, who were "ex officio" entitled to a key. Keys were also issued to people nominated by the Executive to facilitate carrying out club activities. In my opinion, the purpose of Key-Holders has been replaced by Liaison Officers. So let's remove this. == Proposed Amendment 6 (Security) == Replace clause 5.6: All members holding keys to the Programmers' Society room and any rooms leading to same, shall make all reasonable efforts to maintain the security of those rooms. with All members holding access privileges to the Programmers' Society room and any rooms leading to same, shall make all reasonable efforts to maintain the security of those rooms. -- Not really too fussed about this. 'Keys' can be construed to be 'access privileges', regardless of the technology employed. Nevertheless, wouldn't hurt to change this. == Proposed Amendment 7 (Secretary) == Delete from 5.5.3: The Secretary shall act as the Vice?-President in their absence. -- Some more 2015 nonsense[4] I'd like to see gone. I don't see why it's necessary. == Proposed Amendment 8 (Liaison Officers) == Replace in clause 5.1.6: time to to time with time to time Delete from clause 5.1.6: , each of which must be agreed upon by a majority of the Executive Committee vote Delete clauses 5.7.1 through to 5.7.7. Replace clause 5.7: Liaison Officers are to be appointed at the discretion of the Executive Committee and removed at the earlier of either removal by discretion of the Executive Committee, or at the end of an office period of the Executive Committee. Liaison Officers do not hold a position on the Executive Committee, and shall assist and advise the Executive Committee. with: Liaison Officers are to be appointed at the discretion of the Executive Committee and removed at the earlier of either removal by discretion of the Executive Committee, or at the end of an office period of the Executive Committee. Liaison Officers do not hold a position on the Executive Committee, and shall assist and advise the Executive Committee. ?Persons eligible for appointments must be financial members of the Society for the year they are appointed. Liaison Officer roles and positions are to be determined and revised by the Executive Committee from time to time. -- Now the big one. In fact, this is the main part of the Constitution I wish to have amended. The thing about the Constitution is, it should outline what we, as a Society MUST do, not what we OUGHT to do. Accordingly, it should be a minimal document and also, should not be weighed down with clauses that are, in fact, completely discretionary and optional. I'm not against there being Liaison Officers. It's good to empower the rest of the membership, to give them responsibilities and duties. But do we really need to explicitly outline, in the Constitution at least, what roles can be occupied by Officers and how they're appointed? The Executive should be free to appoint as many or as few Liaison Officers as they wish. How they do it should be at their discretion -- they don't have to follow an overly bureaucratic process. It is the membership at large that informs (or should inform) what activities the club does in a given year. These activities vary from year to year, according to the interests of the membership. Appointing Liaisons on a more ad hoc basis -- to serve a specific need, to run a specific set of activities (e.g. programming competitions) -- would be the way to go. It would be a good idea, however, rather than to simply discard clauses 5.7.1 to 5.7.7., we should put those clauses in another document on the wiki called "Liaison Officer Roles" or similar. If you like, the membership can vote upon adding or deleting new roles or amending existing roles to suit the club's purpose. In any case, these roles would serve more or less as a guide as to what a Liaison Officer can occupy. It's good to retain the definitions for this purpose. Again, we shouldn't be limiting ourselves to only appointing Liaisons with these roles. == Proposed Amendment 9 (Auditing) == Delete clause 5.5.4.3: ?They shall present the annual statement of accounts and balance sheet for the preceding financial year to the auditor each year at least two weeks before the Annual General Meeting and shall present the audited statements and balance sheet at the Annual General Meeting. Renumber clause 5.5.4.4 to 5.5.4.3. Delete clauses 6.5 and 6.6: 6.5 Auditor The Auditor shall be appointed by the Executive Committee. 6.6 Annual Audit The Auditor will conduct an audit of the Society's accounts and balance sheet for the financial year preceding the Annual General Meeting, and furnish a report thereon, as an addendum to the Treasurer's report to the Annual General Meeting. -- I'm kind of torn on this one. You see, in all of my time in ProgSoc and, in particular, on the Executive, we never actually did this. We still don't. Maybe it was because we simply weren't aware of these clauses. Or maybe it's because it's completely unnecessary. Every year, as part of Union reaffiliation, each club is required to compile and submit their accounts and balance sheets to the Union, who essentially proceed to carry out an audit of their own of each affiliated clubs' accounts. That we have successfully reaffiliated each year would suggest our financials were in order. (This, by the way, is what I told our previous Treasurer, now current President -- go Brenton! -- when he asked me about these auditing requirements.) So, is it a good idea to retain these clauses, but leave them inoperable, even though as I have previously said, the Constitution should be all about what we must do, not what we should do? Or should we, in fact, be doing our own audit in addition to the one the Union does for us? Thoughts, Tom --- [1] http://progsoc.org/wiki?title=Constitution&oldid=5420 [2] https://www.activateuts.com.au/sites/default/files/2016.AnnualReport.pdf [3] http://progsoc.org/wiki?title=Constitution_Amendments_2015&oldid=5431#Proposed_Amendment_3_.28Removal_of_Executive_Committee_roles.29 [4] http://progsoc.org/wiki?title=Constitution_Amendments_2015&oldid=5431#Proposed_Amendment_7_.28Clarification_of_the_role_of_Secretary.29 ----------------------------------------------------- To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me... From knockycode at progsoc.org Sat Nov 25 12:53:03 2017 From: knockycode at progsoc.org (Jenny Nguyen) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 12:53:03 +1100 Subject: [ProgSoc] Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19 November 2017 at 19:03, Tomislav Bozic wrote: > == Proposed Amendment 8 (Liaison Officers) == > > [snipped] > > Replace clause 5.7: > > Liaison Officers are to be appointed at the discretion of the > Executive Committee and removed at the earlier of either removal by > discretion of the Executive Committee, or at the end of an office > period of the Executive Committee. Liaison Officers do not hold a > position on the Executive Committee, and shall assist and advise > the Executive Committee. > > with: > > Liaison Officers are to be appointed at the discretion of the > Executive Committee and removed at the earlier of either removal by > discretion of the Executive Committee, or at the end of an office > period of the Executive Committee. Liaison Officers do not hold a > position on the Executive Committee, and shall assist and advise the > Executive Committee. ?Persons eligible for appointments must be > financial members of the Society for the year they are appointed. > Liaison Officer roles and positions are to be determined and revised > by the Executive Committee from time to time. > > -- > > [snipped] > > It would be a good idea, however, rather than to simply discard clauses > 5.7.1 to 5.7.7., we should put those clauses in another document on the > wiki called "Liaison Officer Roles" or similar. If you like, the membership > can vote upon adding or deleting new roles or amending existing roles to > suit the club's purpose. In any case, these roles would serve more or less > as a guide as to what a Liaison Officer can occupy. It's good to retain the > definitions for this purpose. Again, we shouldn't be limiting ourselves to > only appointing Liaisons with these roles. > Sounds good. A separate document on the wiki called "Liaison Officer Roles" would be useful. On 19 November 2017 at 19:03, Tomislav Bozic wrote: > > == Proposed Amendment 9 (Auditing) == > > Delete clause 5.5.4.3: > > ?They shall present the annual statement of accounts and balance sheet > for the preceding financial year to the auditor each year at least > two weeks before the Annual General Meeting and shall present the > audited statements and balance sheet at the Annual General Meeting. > > Renumber clause 5.5.4.4 to 5.5.4.3. > > Delete clauses 6.5 and 6.6: > > 6.5 Auditor > > The Auditor shall be appointed by the Executive Committee. > > 6.6 Annual Audit > > The Auditor will conduct an audit of the Society's accounts and > balance sheet for the financial year preceding the Annual General > Meeting, and furnish a report thereon, as an addendum to the > Treasurer's report to the Annual General Meeting. > I was going to remark how I never remember this process until I read your comment, Tom. I think it should be deleted too because as you said, the "Constitution should be all about what we must do, not what we should do". And ActivateUTS (formerly known as UTS Union) would be doing the auditing for us anyway. All the other amendments sound good too. I say that if no one offers suggestions for alterations within seven (7) days -- so by Saturday 2nd of Dec -- these amendments should be put into place. Would you be OK in applying these amendments if they are to go ahead on that day, Tom? Thank you for bringing these suggested amendments forward! Agreements, Jenny -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brenton.smith at optusnet.com.au Sat Nov 25 14:09:43 2017 From: brenton.smith at optusnet.com.au (Brenton Smith) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 14:09:43 +1100 Subject: [ProgSoc] Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601d3659a$d795bd00$86c13700$@optusnet.com.au> I also agree with most of these amendments, and have informally discussed some with Tom earlier. There is always a minor uptick in membership around the AGM however, so I think the proposed changes to 4.2.5 (Membership) may result in a strange scenario where a single membership payment entitles a member to vote in two consecutive AGMs. I?m also curious if the clause 5.1.7.1 (tied votes) is worth retaining, while a tie shouldn?t be possible in a five-member executive, I?m not sure if we can always rely on the participation of every executive member in every vote. On 25 November 2017 at 12:53, Jenny Nguyen > wrote: All the other amendments sound good too. I say that if no one offers suggestions for alterations within seven (7) days -- so by Saturday 2nd of Dec -- these amendments should be put into place. Would you be OK in applying these amendments if they are to go ahead on that day, Tom? Thank you for bringing these suggested amendments forward! Per clause 8.1, we?ll need to make these amendments at the AGM or an SGM. We?ve missed the 2017 AGM and reaffiliation is due/occurring in early December, so I think there?s no rush to making these amendments. Officially removing the need for an audit would be nice before the next AGM however, so maybe an SGM can be called once the 2018 academic year starts? Regards, Brenton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From knockycode at progsoc.org Sat Nov 25 15:58:56 2017 From: knockycode at progsoc.org (Jenny Nguyen) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 15:58:56 +1100 Subject: [ProgSoc] Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017 In-Reply-To: <000601d3659a$d795bd00$86c13700$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000601d3659a$d795bd00$86c13700$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On 25 November 2017 at 14:09, Brenton Smith wrote: > On 25 November 2017 at 12:53, Jenny Nguyen wrote: > > All the other amendments sound good too. I say that if no one offers > suggestions for alterations within seven (7) days -- so by Saturday 2nd of > Dec -- these amendments should be put into place. Would you be OK in > applying these amendments if they are to go ahead on that day, Tom? Thank > you for bringing these suggested amendments forward! > > > > Per clause 8.1, we?ll need to make these amendments at the AGM or an SGM. > > We?ve missed the 2017 AGM and reaffiliation is due/occurring in early > December, so I think there?s no rush to making these amendments. > Officially removing the need for an audit would be nice before the next > AGM however, so maybe an SGM can be called once the 2018 academic year > starts? > Oh woops. Yes, a SGM to discuss the amendments in the 2018 academic year sounds good! True that there is no rush. Details about the SGM will follow when it is ready [1]. [1]: Reference to Blizzard's 'when it's ready' announcements in regard to their upcoming games. https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/4v6ztd/i_just_want_to_thank_blizzard_for_its_show/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tomchristmas at progsoc.org Sat Nov 25 22:51:11 2017 From: tomchristmas at progsoc.org (Tomislav Bozic) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:51:11 +1100 Subject: [ProgSoc] Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017 In-Reply-To: <000601d3659a$d795bd00$86c13700$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000601d3659a$d795bd00$86c13700$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <28d59e59-0fea-9055-0ae9-ddefed019ea2@progsoc.org> On 25/11/17 14:09, Brenton Smith wrote: > There is always a minor uptick in membership around the AGM however, so > I think the proposed changes to 4.2.5 (Membership) may result in a > strange scenario where a single membership payment entitles a member to > vote in two consecutive AGMs. ...yeah, someone could become a member or renew at the AGM of one year, then, thanks to clause 4.3.1. they could vote again at the next AGM without renewal. Is this necessarily a bad thing, though? Besides, since they'd likely be in arrears, albeit by only a few days, they would probably renew at that point anyway. > I?m also curious if the clause 5.1.7.1 (tied votes) is worth retaining, > while a tie shouldn?t be possible in a five-member executive, I?m not > sure if we can always rely on the participation of every executive > member in every vote. Yeah, someone could abstain from a vote thus causing a tie (what if the president abstained and it was a tie!? Cue the Four Horsemen and the Dramatic Chipmunk...) But again, the Executive's internal affairs should be a matter for the Executive and not the Constitution. Resolve their own ties and deadlocks as they see fit -- that's how they should be. Sidenote: prior to 1996, we used to have a constitutional definition for Executive meetings. Then we got rid of it[1]. Raz explains why we got rid of it here: [2] (scroll down to "That clause 7.6 be deleted."). The sentence "We believe that it is appropriate that the Executive Committee regulate itself in this regard." pretty much echoes my sentiment pertaining to 5.1.7.1 On 25 November 2017 at 12:53, Jenny Nguyen > wrote: > > All the other amendments sound good too. I say that if no one offers > suggestions for alterations within seven (7) days -- so by Saturday 2nd > of Dec -- these amendments should be put into place. Would you be OK in > applying these amendments if they are to go ahead on that day, Tom? > Thank you?for bringing these suggested amendments forward! As Brenton said: "Per clause 8.1, we?ll need to make these amendments at the AGM or an SGM." There is actually a Constitutional method to follow in order to modify the Constitution -- funny that! My posting of these proposals to the list do not constitute a formal Section 8.2 amendment submission. It was merely intended as an informal discussion of my proposals. An SGM for this would be best at the appropriate time, early next year. Tom --- [1] http://progsoc.org/wiki/Constitution_Amendments_1996#Proposed_Amendment_10_.28Abolition_of_Executive_Committee_Meetings.29 [2] http://raz.cx/progsoc/const-amend-19960722.html ----------------------------------------------------- To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me... From tomchristmas at progsoc.org Mon Nov 27 15:40:31 2017 From: tomchristmas at progsoc.org (Tom Bozic) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:40:31 +1100 Subject: [ProgSoc] Fwd: Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017 References: <5778AEF9-D572-49B0-AF2C-03E7B06306CB@progsoc.org> Message-ID: > Yes. > > Tom > > --------- > To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me > >> On 27 Nov 2017, at 14:25, Liam Edwards-Playne wrote: >> >> Guys, has there been any activity whatsoever in this society to justify the needless bureaucracy? >> >>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Tomislav Bozic wrote: >>> >>>> On 25/11/17 14:09, Brenton Smith wrote: >>>> There is always a minor uptick in membership around the AGM however, so I think the proposed changes to 4.2.5 (Membership) may result in a strange scenario where a single membership payment entitles a member to vote in two consecutive AGMs. >>> >>> ...yeah, someone could become a member or renew at the AGM of one year, then, thanks to clause 4.3.1. they could vote again at the next AGM without renewal. >>> >>> Is this necessarily a bad thing, though? Besides, since they'd likely be in arrears, albeit by only a few days, they would probably renew at that point anyway. >>> >>>> I?m also curious if the clause 5.1.7.1 (tied votes) is worth retaining, while a tie shouldn?t be possible in a five-member executive, I?m not sure if we can always rely on the participation of every executive member in every vote. >>> >>> Yeah, someone could abstain from a vote thus causing a tie (what if the president abstained and it was a tie!? Cue the Four Horsemen and the Dramatic Chipmunk...) >>> >>> But again, the Executive's internal affairs should be a matter for the Executive and not the Constitution. Resolve their own ties and deadlocks as they see fit -- that's how they should be. >>> >>> Sidenote: prior to 1996, we used to have a constitutional definition for Executive meetings. Then we got rid of it[1]. Raz explains why we got rid of it here: [2] (scroll down to "That clause 7.6 be deleted."). The sentence "We believe that it is appropriate that the Executive Committee regulate itself in this regard." pretty much echoes my sentiment pertaining to 5.1.7.1 >>> >>> On 25 November 2017 at 12:53, Jenny Nguyen >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> All the other amendments sound good too. I say that if no one offers suggestions for alterations within seven (7) days -- so by Saturday 2nd of Dec -- these amendments should be put into place. Would you be OK in applying these amendments if they are to go ahead on that day, Tom? Thank you for bringing these suggested amendments forward! >>> >>> As Brenton said: >>> >>> "Per clause 8.1, we?ll need to make these amendments at the AGM or an SGM." >>> >>> There is actually a Constitutional method to follow in order to modify the Constitution -- funny that! >>> >>> My posting of these proposals to the list do not constitute a formal Section 8.2 amendment submission. It was merely intended as an informal discussion of my proposals. >>> >>> An SGM for this would be best at the appropriate time, early next year. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> --- >>> >>> [1] http://progsoc.org/wiki/Constitution_Amendments_1996#Proposed_Amendment_10_.28Abolition_of_Executive_Committee_Meetings.29 >>> >>> [2] http://raz.cx/progsoc/const-amend-19960722.html >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me... >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Progsoc mailing list >>> Progsoc at progsoc.org >>> http://progsoc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progsoc >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From knockycode at progsoc.org Mon Nov 27 17:35:54 2017 From: knockycode at progsoc.org (Jenny Nguyen) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:35:54 +1100 Subject: [ProgSoc] Fwd: Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <5778AEF9-D572-49B0-AF2C-03E7B06306CB@progsoc.org> Message-ID: There will be activity. The Executive are planning a few events (e.g. [bi-]annual Programming Competition, tech talks) for 2018. Details of the events will be announced on Facebook , Twitter and in the progsoc-announce mailing list when they are ready. Jenny Vice President for 2018 On 27 November 2017 at 15:40, Tom Bozic wrote: > > Yes. > > Tom > > --------- > To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me > > On 27 Nov 2017, at 14:25, Liam Edwards-Playne > wrote: > > Guys, has there been any activity whatsoever in this society to justify > the needless bureaucracy? > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Tomislav Bozic > wrote: > >> >> On 25/11/17 14:09, Brenton Smith wrote: >> >>> There is always a minor uptick in membership around the AGM however, so >>> I think the proposed changes to 4.2.5 (Membership) may result in a strange >>> scenario where a single membership payment entitles a member to vote in two >>> consecutive AGMs. >>> >> >> ...yeah, someone could become a member or renew at the AGM of one year, >> then, thanks to clause 4.3.1. they could vote again at the next AGM without >> renewal. >> >> Is this necessarily a bad thing, though? Besides, since they'd likely be >> in arrears, albeit by only a few days, they would probably renew at that >> point anyway. >> >> I?m also curious if the clause 5.1.7.1 (tied votes) is worth retaining, >>> while a tie shouldn?t be possible in a five-member executive, I?m not sure >>> if we can always rely on the participation of every executive member in >>> every vote. >>> >> >> Yeah, someone could abstain from a vote thus causing a tie (what if the >> president abstained and it was a tie!? Cue the Four Horsemen and the >> Dramatic Chipmunk...) >> >> But again, the Executive's internal affairs should be a matter for the >> Executive and not the Constitution. Resolve their own ties and deadlocks as >> they see fit -- that's how they should be. >> >> Sidenote: prior to 1996, we used to have a constitutional definition for >> Executive meetings. Then we got rid of it[1]. Raz explains why we got rid >> of it here: [2] (scroll down to "That clause 7.6 be deleted."). The >> sentence "We believe that it is appropriate that the Executive Committee >> regulate itself in this regard." pretty much echoes my sentiment pertaining >> to 5.1.7.1 >> >> On 25 November 2017 at 12:53, Jenny Nguyen > >>> > wrote: >>> >>> All the other amendments sound good too. I say that if no one offers >>> suggestions for alterations within seven (7) days -- so by Saturday 2nd of >>> Dec -- these amendments should be put into place. Would you be OK in >>> applying these amendments if they are to go ahead on that day, Tom? Thank >>> you for bringing these suggested amendments forward! >>> >> >> As Brenton said: >> >> "Per clause 8.1, we?ll need to make these amendments at the AGM or an >> SGM." >> >> There is actually a Constitutional method to follow in order to modify >> the Constitution -- funny that! >> >> My posting of these proposals to the list do not constitute a formal >> Section 8.2 amendment submission. It was merely intended as an informal >> discussion of my proposals. >> >> An SGM for this would be best at the appropriate time, early next year. >> >> Tom >> >> --- >> >> [1] http://progsoc.org/wiki/Constitution_Amendments_1996#Propose >> d_Amendment_10_.28Abolition_of_Executive_Committee_Meetings.29 >> >> [2] http://raz.cx/progsoc/const-amend-19960722.html >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> >> To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Progsoc mailing list >> Progsoc at progsoc.org >> http://progsoc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progsoc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Progsoc mailing list > Progsoc at progsoc.org > http://progsoc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progsoc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: