From owner-constitution@andromeda.68k.org Tue Jul 29 00:00:47 1997 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:00:14 -0500 From: owner-constitution-digest@lsmsaaa.org (LSMSAAA Constitution Digest) To: constitution-digest@68k.org Subject: LSMSAAA Constitution Digest V1 #1 Reply-To: constitution@andromeda.68k.org Sender: owner-constitution-digest@lsmsaaa.org Errors-To: owner-constitution-digest@lsmsaaa.org Precedence: bulk LSMSAAA Constitution Digest Tuesday, July 29 1997 Volume 01 : Number 001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 00:47:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Dennis Voss Subject: Greetings Welcome to the Virtual Constitutional Convention. This is a test message, to make sure that all of our logged email addresses are valid, and also an introduction. I am going to give others a little additional time to decide whether they wish to join, and then we can get started. Until then, if you have any specific proposals you would like us to consider, or problems with the LSMSAAA that you would like to see fixed, please email me personally so that I can add them to the agenda. Nothing obvious is necessary (e.g. that rules of succession and impeachment need replacing), only things that the alumni mailing list hasn't mentioned yet. Once we get started, I was thinking we should proceed as follows: I will make the choice of which issue to discuss at which time, and offer the starting text for an amendment with each issue (because it's better to have something specific to criticize). Then we can debate the proposed amendment in an unstructured way, with me incorporating immediately any changes that seem consensual (including entire rewrites, if applicable). But once any clear divisions become apparent, I will step in to structure a debate and a vote. So my influence is as the agenda-setter, but on decisions of preference my vote will be worth no more than that of others. I don't think such a small group needs rigid rules about a quorum or vote requirements. Without them, people can pay attention to the issues that interest them and ignore those that do not -- without worrying about whether they will tie up efforts. On the other hand, the LSMSAAA's constitutional crisis is serious enough that we don't want to produce a controversial proposal that will have uncertain success. So if a couple of people strongly oppose any proposal, regardless of the vote, we probably should leave it out of the initial document. Controversial amendments can always be put forward by their advocates later, with an LSMSAAA vote determining the outcome. I hope this emphasis on consensus does not strike you as excessively timid, but we need to get something out quickly at first. Feel free to respond to these suggestions, either to me or to the VCC: constitution@lsmsaaa.org steve ('86) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Stephen Voss (dsvoss@wjh.harvard.edu) Eat your beans, then some mutton, Department of Government, GSAS don't pee ... and go on looking Harvard University after you obsession! Oh! my hypothesis! M-38 Littauer Bldg. Oh! my fame! I shall be immortal! Immortal! Cambridge, MA 02138 Doktor (from Wozzeck) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of LSMSAAA Constitution Digest V1 #1 ****************************************