Popular Ratification: Call for Co-Sponsors
Having thought over the two versions of Popular Ratification that I've drafted, I am more inclined to submit Version 2. If anyone prefers Version 1, you now have the language that you can use if you want to propose an amendment by substitution. Alternatively, if you want to move the voting deadline to earlier, you can move amendments to the proposal at the Glasgow Business Meeting.
I have added commentary to Version 2, with the intention of it being submitted as the makers' argument and thus part of the legislative record. The marginal comments within the document are not part of what will be submitted, but were there to help people reading the proposal understand what was going on. Yes, it can take a lot of words to explain something, with the explanation being longer than the wording of the legislation itself. That's how laws and constitutions work. "Plain language" often isn't that plain, despite what some people think.
I've seen more complicated suggestions, like having the members of Worldcons N and N+1 votes separately and both of them having to ratify the proposal. I can see the attraction, but the more bells and whistles you add to changes, the less likely they are to pass, in my opinion. But hey, anyone who wants to make amendments can do so, and all you have to do is convince a majority of the people in the room at the 2024 Business Meeting to vote for it initially.
If any of you who have previously volunteered to co-sponsor this proposal (you have to be a WSFS member of the 2024 Worldcon, attending or not, and you don't have to attend the Business Meeting to co-sponsor a proposal), contact me with your name as it appears in Glasgow's records. I don't necessarily know the names of the people behind the DW/LJ handles commenting here.
I have added commentary to Version 2, with the intention of it being submitted as the makers' argument and thus part of the legislative record. The marginal comments within the document are not part of what will be submitted, but were there to help people reading the proposal understand what was going on. Yes, it can take a lot of words to explain something, with the explanation being longer than the wording of the legislation itself. That's how laws and constitutions work. "Plain language" often isn't that plain, despite what some people think.
I've seen more complicated suggestions, like having the members of Worldcons N and N+1 votes separately and both of them having to ratify the proposal. I can see the attraction, but the more bells and whistles you add to changes, the less likely they are to pass, in my opinion. But hey, anyone who wants to make amendments can do so, and all you have to do is convince a majority of the people in the room at the 2024 Business Meeting to vote for it initially.
If any of you who have previously volunteered to co-sponsor this proposal (you have to be a WSFS member of the 2024 Worldcon, attending or not, and you don't have to attend the Business Meeting to co-sponsor a proposal), contact me with your name as it appears in Glasgow's records. I don't necessarily know the names of the people behind the DW/LJ handles commenting here.