[ProgSoc] Fwd: Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017
knockycode at progsoc.org
Mon Nov 27 17:35:54 AEDT 2017
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 <https://www.facebook.com/ProgSoc/>, Twitter
<https://twitter.com/progsoc_uts> and in the progsoc-announce mailing list
when they are ready.
Vice President for 2018
On 27 November 2017 at 15:40, Tom Bozic <tomchristmas at progsoc.org> wrote:
> To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me
> On 27 Nov 2017, at 14:25, Liam Edwards-Playne <liamzebedee at gmail.com>
> 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 <tomchristmas at progsoc.org
> > 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
>> 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 220.127.116.11 (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. Raz explains why we got rid
>> of it here:  (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 18.104.22.168
>> On 25 November 2017 at 12:53, Jenny Nguyen <knockycode at progsoc.org
>>> <mailto:knockycode at progsoc.org>> 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
>> 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.
>>  http://progsoc.org/wiki/Constitution_Amendments_1996#Propose
>>  http://raz.cx/progsoc/const-amend-19960722.html
>> To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me...
>> Progsoc mailing list
>> Progsoc at progsoc.org
> Progsoc mailing list
> Progsoc at progsoc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Progsoc