Talk:Constitution: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Cmich what to do about obvious errors/omissions in the constitution |
imported>Cmich m sign my name |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
#Should we make a revised version with these errors fixed. That way, if the exec ever wants to ammend the constitution with some other changes, they can include these "fixes" as well? | #Should we make a revised version with these errors fixed. That way, if the exec ever wants to ammend the constitution with some other changes, they can include these "fixes" as well? | ||
#Should we verify that the constitution we have in .DOC and wiki format actually matches the one the AMS has on file? The .DOC file was the proposed constitution presented at the AGM before filing. It's possible that some minor fixes were incorporated before filing. | #Should we verify that the constitution we have in .DOC and wiki format actually matches the one the AMS has on file? The .DOC file was the proposed constitution presented at the AGM before filing. It's possible that some minor fixes were incorporated before filing. | ||
--[[User:Cmich|Chris Michalak]] 10:34, 16 Sep 2006 (MST) | |||
Revision as of 17:34, 16 September 2006
Errors and Omissions in the Constitutions
There are some obvious errors and omissions in the constitution. For example, there is no "obligations" section for associate members.
- Should we make a revised version with these errors fixed. That way, if the exec ever wants to ammend the constitution with some other changes, they can include these "fixes" as well?
- Should we verify that the constitution we have in .DOC and wiki format actually matches the one the AMS has on file? The .DOC file was the proposed constitution presented at the AGM before filing. It's possible that some minor fixes were incorporated before filing.
--Chris Michalak 10:34, 16 Sep 2006 (MST)