Wished to have your interpretation on the Constitution over the Reaction Round during the Governance Meeting. Constitution Article 3.3.5 :
“(c) Reaction Round: Once there are no further clarifying questions, each participant except the Proposer may share reactions to the Proposal, one person at a time. The Facilitator must immediately stop and disallow any out-of-turn comments, any attempts to engage others in a dialog or exchange of any sort, and any reactions to other reactions instead of to the Proposal.”
In the case the Secretary is also Proposer, may the Secretary change the proposal as he is physically the same person, the Proposer during the Reaction Round, integrating what people say, for example, noting or amending one thing, and so there are technically physically no interactions?
My interpretation would be no as if they were two physically different people this won't be possible and so this is role abuse (as those are two different roles, and the Proposer is abusing his Secretary role), and that this is a kind of interaction with the tool GlassFrog “The Facilitator must immediately stop and disallow [...] or exchange of any sort” and the fact that in addition, it's very much disturbing for the people reacting. Wished to have your interpretations? As another polarity might be to say that “it's not explicitly prohibited”.