[SOM] The Sponsorship-Motion Amendment

…2.4. Any sponsorSponsor or Magister may motion the Bill or Standing Orders Amendment to vote at any time during debate. A Magister who is not a sponsor must second that motion. If a non-Sponsor makes and seconds the motion, the Sponsor may object within 48 hours if they believe the Bill or Standing Orders Amendment still needs amendment.The Provost shall be deemed sponsor if the sponsor(s) are absent or inactive longer than 21 days within the Bill’s thread.
…2.4.1. Should a motioned Bill fail to be seconded within 48 hours, the Bill shall return to being debated. The Sponsor(s)Any Sponsor or Magister may immediately move the Bill to vote again.

Reasoning: We shouldn’t be solely reliant on the sponsor to make motions, and besides, a sponsor is always going to want to move it to a vote, so it would be prudent to get more opinions by having non-sponsors have the ability to say, “Hey, this should be voted on now.” Especially since, as a frequent sponsor, I’m always thinking “Has there been enough time for discussion, has there been enough publicity, etc.” and this would help bc someone else would be able to say “I’m a Magister and I’ve seen this, I support this, and I’m not seeing any action, so let’s go.”

There is the fear that, if the sponsor wants to make alterations based on comments, someone else could force it through and the sponsor would be left behind, but that’s why there’s an objection period. Which is 24 hours bc only an active sponsor should be objecting. And a sponsor can always say “I don’t want this moved to a vote” and, out of respect and courtesy, no two Magisters are gonna motion and second. If they ever do, it’s because the sponsor isn’t doing anything and it’s time to take things unto themselves.

Looks good

Seems like a sensible change, and the addition of a clause allowing the sponsor to object to a motion provides a middle ground between “completely sponsor-led” and “death of the author”.

While I appreciate the intent, I dont see the benefit as-is.

If a sponsor is truly questioning whether something should go to vote, then they can just ask for opinions in the #magisterium channel. Also, the purpose of a second is to act as a check in this manner, so it seems a bit superfluous given that its rare someone will second a proposal if its too early.

I also dont think 24 hours is a fair period because 99% of people dont check the forums daily. If thats aimed to be kept in, there should be something about notifying the individual on Discord - although not even that may work since sometimes people skip checking Discord too. To me, it seems more simpler to let the sponsor decide when they wish to move something forward.

I would support this system if it was a seperate motioning system that becomes available after like perhaps two weeks of 0 sponsor input on a Bill, since I agree that after a certain point you just need to push things forward. But not as our primary motion system.

Also, I dont really understand why any Magister can make the first motion, since it still allows the sponsor to make the first motion - which is contradictory to this proposal’s reasonings.

Change it to “any sponsor or Magister” so Residents and Citizens who propose something can still motion.

I think this is fine. The only thing I’d mention is that it’s a bit odd that, if a non-sponsor motions to vote, the sponsor is still not allowed to second that motion, which isn’t a really an issue so much as it feels like an odd leftover from the pre-amendment law. It makes sense if you want to prevent two sponsors from motioning their own bill to vote, but if the initial motion is initiated by a non-sponsor, disallowing the sponsor to second just seems somewhat unnecessary. Again, it’s not really an issue with the amendment, but I’d still probably favour removing that stipulation.

The edited version looks better and mitigates the burden from the Provost back to the Magisterium, looks good to me

Sorry for the delay but I’ve made some changes based on these comments.

As said above, I think the intent behind this proposed law is solid, and the changes nailed down in the above discussion strengthen it. In fact, if I could, I would even motion it to a vote!