regain voting rights

[shaeespring]

Check one:

• Semantic Change: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Change: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of change(s):
Adds House to regain voting rights

• Basically, if E-Board says "no, you can't vote", that same member can go to House, and say "I want to be waived from the House Meeting requirement because of X" House can say yes or no
• The idea is to stick with House Culture, where the requirement is waived until there is a change (For example, the requirement for House Meeting would be waived until they miss ANOTHER meeting, whereas then they have to ask again)
• If you're missing something like directorships, the requirement is waived the same way

[mxmeinhold]

implicit is that either vote is with that vote method and quorum correct?

[shaeespring]

I don't think I understand what you're asking. Both types of votes are defined elsewhere in the constitution if that's what you mean

[mxmeinhold]

this I still think is very muddy, in terms of the exact mechanics of what we consider a change in that status, but it is much clearer than before, and I think it can serve. Someone could very sincerely argue that improving the status of requirements is a change is really the main hole that I see.

[shaeespring]

Improving the status of requirements is indeed a change, and I don't think that's a hole. I just can't think of anything better. If you don't have voting rights because you've only attended 4 directorships, and you get the right to vote, and you then only go to one directorship before the next House Meeting, you would need to ask again for a waiver to vote, under this implementation.
Is "or until there is a negative change in the status" recommended wording?

[pikachu0542]

or until there is a negative change in the status

i like this.

[pikachu0542]

What is the reasoning for not letting evals waive people's ability to vote as well as the option of going to eboard and house?

[shaeespring]

What is the reasoning for not letting evals waive people's ability to vote as well as the option of going to eboard and house?

It was determined that House doesn't want that ability to be determined by any one person, confirmed by the amendment discussion meeting