No subject

I understand Carlos correctly, this was requested indirectly, as the
amendment was proposed by a PP DE member who - according to Jens - did
not have the right to propose amendments for PP DE. From Jens I
understand that he did not want amendment 3 to be annulled. And I wonder
why amendment 8 was not annulled, if all amendments from members of PP
DE other than Jens should be annulled, as this was proposed by Max
Moritz Sievers who is a PP DE member.

I think we can all be blamed for this. Jens for being too slow (putting
on asbestos suit). Carlos for doing the wiki change when it was really
Jens' job (putting on yet another asbestos suit). The rest of us for not
ensuring sufficiently clear rules from the start (running to the nuclear
bunker ;-).

We should not throw flames, but instead learn from our mistakes. How can
we ensure something like this does not happen again? How can we make the
process better next time?

I think it is important we know exactly who can propose amendments from
the very start of the amendment proposal period. And we should not take
annullment of amendments lightly. During the last week of the amendment
proposal period it should probably be completely forbidden to annull
amendments, so we can be sure that any amendments we want to vote for
will still be present during the voting period.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.