Legislators of the South Pacific,

There has been a seconded motion to bring an amendment to the Times Act to vote. The debate thread can be found here.

This is an amendment to general legislation, according to the Legislative Procedure Act requiring a majority greater than 50% to pass. The voting period will be 3 days, thus concluding on January 19 at 16:00 UTC (16:00 in London, 11:00 in New York, 03:00 on Jan 20 in Sydney).

Please vote by poll if possible. If you cannot vote by poll, post 'Aye', 'Nay' or 'Abstain' in this thread. Please do not vote both by poll and by post. Comments and discussions belong in the debate thread and should be posted there.

Times Act

An act to establish a common timezone for all official deadlines

Table of contents

1. Scope
   
2. Timezones
   

1. Scope

(1) This act applies to all legal deadlines used by government entities in the South Pacific.

2. Timezones

(1) All legal deadlines posted on the official forums that establish a specific hour and minute must use Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) the official Time bbcode, to ensure displayed times are shown in local timezones.

(2) The deadline must contain a link to a countdown timer established using the Time and Date Live Countdown Timer.

(3) All such deadlines shall be accompanied by a reference to the equivalent time in London, New York and Sydney provided by the Time and Date Time Zone Converter.

(2) All other legal deadlines posted in other venues shall contain a conspicuous link to a countdown timer using the Time and Date Live Countdown Timer and a conversion to London, New York, and Sydney using the Time and Date Time Zone Converter, regardless of what timezone is utilized in the official notice.

(4)(3) When publishing non-legal deadlines, conformance to this act is strongly encouraged.

(This post was last modified: 01-19-2022, 12:03 PM by anjo.)

Reply

Final Result Amend the Times Act
Ayes: 22 47.8% | 75.9% (discounting abstentions)	Nays: 7 15.2% | 24.1% (discounting abstentions)
There were 17 Abstentions (37.0%); 35 legislators were absent. Thus, attendance for this vote was 56.8%.
In light of these results, the proposal passes, having achieved the required majority (>50%).

Reply