You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In our case, we have our base, old statutes, that we want to update. About 25 modifications were proposed, so now we want to proceed in two steps:
first merge the "consensual" changes (cleanup, vocabulary, etc)
bring that new version to vote, then proceed to vote on all other changes individually
From the documentation (which doesn't make that "Statutes vs normal" distinction), over at https://discuss.green/help#merging_single, it seems that I should be able to uphold amendments between the two steps above (so that I can get a new version without having to re-propose all the amendments).
I had to go look in the code and found that the Statutes motionType forces this behaviour out:
In our case, we have our base, old statutes, that we want to update. About 25 modifications were proposed, so now we want to proceed in two steps:
From the documentation (which doesn't make that "Statutes vs normal" distinction), over at https://discuss.green/help#merging_single, it seems that I should be able to uphold amendments between the two steps above (so that I can get a new version without having to re-propose all the amendments).
I had to go look in the code and found that the Statutes motionType forces this behaviour out:
antragsgruen/models/motionTypeTemplates/Statutes.php
Line 30 in 6f329fb
Could this be changed?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: