Of course it's a surprise! Very obviously, no one here had realised that this had been overlooked until Jny noticed!
Well yes, no one realized that Article 8 hadn't been made consistent with the amendment that passed. But my point was, it isn't a substantive surprise; it isn't, 'Oh my gosh, I didn't realize the amendment called for the threads to be deleted three days after the end of the consideration period!' The surprise is simply, 'Oops, we forgot to change Article 8 to make it consistent with the main amendment.'
Maybe people should have understood, but it's quite obvious they didn't, so it's a surprise. I think even you yourself were rather taken by surprise here earlier.
When I said people should have understood, I was talking about the substance of the amendment, not about the fact that Article 8 was overlooked. In other words, I'm saying that everyone knew (or should have known) that the amendment they voted for (or against) calls for deletion of the petitioner threads after a certain time, and I believe people understood (or should have done) that the Charter would be made consistent with the new amendment if it passed.
I agree that I and everyone else overlooked the fact that this included a minor change to Article 8; I still don't see it as any kind of real surprise, because the fact that the amendment, if passed, would necessitate other minor amendments to the Charter was made known in the ratification text. So I don't think we're really disagreeing here. Yes, Article 8 was overlooked when amending the Charter for consistency, but the substance of the changes to Article 8 that would have to be made were understood, being part of the amendment that was ratified.
I think what Ax means (and definitely what I mean) is that no one should get a surprise in the sense that one day they read the charter and find something that wasn't there last time they read it,
Ah, but this is just the point. If someone is aware of the recent amendment and they are reading through the Charter anew, then they are aware that Article 6 now contains a provision for the deletion of petitioner threads, and they will not get a surprise when they see that provision also included in the Charter text for Article 8. They might get more of a surprise if they didn't see a provision of Article 6 appropriately reflected in the text of Article 8.
and they had no chance to find out earlier because no one bothered to announce the change and ask for feedback beforehand!
But again, of course they had a chance to find out. They found out when they participated in the ratification of the amendment to Article 6, that there was a provision for the deletion of petitioner threads. If they were familiar with the Charter and were mindful of Article 8 (which apparently no one was) they also would have realized that Article 8 would have to be amended to be made consistent with the new amendment if it passed. So I just don't see this as a matter for announcements and feedback. The matter has already been thoroughly vetted and a technical tidying up needs to be done.
but that doesn't mean anyone in power to actually make the change should assume that there will be no objections and go ahead without asking first!
The thing is, there isn't a real change being made, there are no grounds for an objection and it has nothing to do with power. The change (deletion of petitioner threads) was contained in the amendment, the power was exercised by the membership in writing and passing the amendment. Since the amendment passed and the practice of the board is now changed to include deletion of petitioner threads in ToE, having the Charter reflect that is simply common sense, not an additional change that someone can object to. No one can object to making Article 8 consistent with Article 6, because Article 6 was more recently passed as an amendment to the Charter.
I think as Jnyusa said, this kind of problem can be avoided in the future by simply added a comment in ratification texts or somewhere, that any overlooked changes for consistency will automatically be made if an amendment passes.
That's why I suggested to leave the thread up for a decent time, announcing that this and that inconsistency has been found and the plan is to make this and that change to remove it, and if someone has a problem with that to please contact a Ranger.
As I said I have no problem with leaving the thread up or going through whatever process people feel is necessary. However, there is no scenario for someone 'having a problem' with making the Charter consistent with a passed amendment. Obviously the Charter needs to be made internally consistent. If someone has a problem with amending Article 8 to include a provision for deletion of petitioner threads, then their problem substantively is with Article 6, not with Article 8.
No need for a vote, but everyone interested gets a chance to keep informed and get involved in everything that concerns the text of the charter - it is about inclusion, I think.
I heartily agree that everyone should be kept informed and involved. We were all involved (who wanted to be) when we participated in the writing and ratification of the amendment. We were all sort of involved (though I'm happy to accept that responsibility) when we overlooked the necessity of amending Article 8. And now we are all involved in discovering the oversight and rectifying it.
Edit
Oops, cross-posted with Hobby. Yes, "anything to the contrary thereof nothwithstanding" would take care of things nicely (and it sounds kind of Bilbo-y to boot).