On Ubuntu, I also needed texlive-formats-extra in order to build. Maybe this is the same on Debian. I'm not sure what the equivalent yum package is, if needed.

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 730f79a..4fdffc7 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Must have make, and pdflatex installed.
 
 Installing dependencies on debian
 
-`sudo apt install texlive make`
+`sudo apt install texlive texlive-formats-extra make`
 
 Installing depencdencies on fedora
 

https://github.com/ComputerScienceHouse/Constitution/blob/master/articles.tex#L148

Alumnias is not a word. It should be alumni.

In the creation of the PR directorship budget in #219, 5% of the budget was allocated away from accum, but it also was not allocated away from accum it seems (attention to lines 503 and 508 509)

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:

Housing board/selections thing - How many freshmen rooms should be reserved for next year 33%.

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:
Some bullet lists have periods at the end of every list item, some do not. This is very minor, but could probably be scripted and fixed quickly.

See bylaws 4.B.1 sub section c. There is no explicit wording stating that the vote ought to be a simple majority as it is currently done.

This commit is invalid and should reverted: 2e787cf

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:
As is the goal of the new constitution committee, we are moving to update our constitution to fall more in line with current RIT policy and co-opt sections that push us towards more modern expectations. Sections we should work to include start with but are not limited to:

• Defined policy for practices often covered by Judicial's
• Rights of members (from house and within house)
• Clearly defined Anti-Hazing policy
• Extension of RIT's policies where applicable

This list can expand and change, but this is the initial list based on recent discussions in house meeting as a starting point.

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:
What are articles?
https://github.com/ComputerScienceHouse/Constitution/blob/master/bylaws.tex#L296
"If the member has previously passed an Membership Evaluation they will move to Alumni Membership status at the end of the Standard Operating Session (\ref{Alumni Membership Selection})."

Change an to a.

A full semester as referred to here is not defined, and could be taken to mean either a contiguous RIT semester or 16 weeks in total.

Thinking about ctrl +f " Executive board" and changing it to "Executive Board." Thoughts?

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:
Constitution 3.A.2 contains "the selection process as defined in 4.B." the 4.B is "linked" to Section 4.B "Closed Executive Board" which is clearly not the selection process. I assume that this 4.B is referring to By-Laws 4.B, which are about the selection process. I propose this "link" should be removed or changed to be a link to the By-Laws (if possible).

Similar problems are in the documents as a whole, with both documents using the same numbering system and not specifying which document is being referred to. I propose that there should be some means to differentiating which document is being referred to.

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:
During our Introductory Evaluations meeting we seem to automatically go for an On-Floor Status vote. The constitution does not mandate this, and I think we should talk about whether or not we should just stop doing it or an amendment needs to be added. I think house is generally in agreement that the On-Floor Status vote is a waste of time usually.

Is this how it has always been? Are there any Nth years that remember it being different?

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:
Section 3.B.7 and 3.C.2 are very vague about what happens when a member goes into alumni status.
specifically in 3.C.2

Active members who depart house without passing the current operating session’s Membership Evaluations are considered to be Alumni in bad standing. This may be appealed to the Executive Board in order to pursue a different outcome.

The current operating session's membership evaluation is a little unclear on when member can become an alumni in good standing. Can this only be done over the summer? I'm not sure if this is the way we've done it in the past, and we should probably rethink it and bring it up to date.

Line 394 is vague as to whether the inability to vote is true if the position is held by a stand-in member or the chairman

In the bylaws this section pops up.
d. Ballots will then be distributed for a secret ballot, fifty-percent House vote, as defined in 5.C.2. If more than two advisors are selected via this process, the Executive Board may call for a revote amongst the candidates selected in order to reduce the number of advisors to a workable level. If this decision is made, the candidates selected in the first ballot become the nominees for the second ballot and Step Three and Four are repeated. This recast process may not be repeated a second time.

This section is "numbered" by letter and references a three and four, which do not exist.

Also, it should probably be changed to say "as defined in the Constitution in 5.C.2" as that is talked about in the constitution not in the bylaws. Also, if you wanted to shorten that, you could define something like B.5.C.2 as bylaws section 5.C.2 and C.5.C.2 as constitution section 5.C.2. Just a thought.

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:
There are currently 12 issues that aren't properly being displayed. The references need to be fixed. They currently display as ??

The issue lies within the Makefile, and that we need there to be existing .pdf files in order for the links to properly reference.

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:

In section 4.B.1, at the bottom as an additional note, it reads

Additional Note:  No hazing shall occur at any time during the Selection Process in accordance with theNew York State Hazing Laws.

which should probably be expanded upon, and also default to RIT's hazing policy instead of New York state law. Maybe make a new subsection for what is and is not permitted.

Our official governing document really, really shouldn't include phrases such as "They must then undergo the selection process as defined in ??." These are present throughout the document.

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:

Since dropping Fish from on-floor housing, the max number of on-floor members has dropped from 72 to 55. This should be reflected in section 5.D.1.C "Breakdown of Dues for Directorship Budgets" where the new suggested total budget should be $8800.

We used this budget number for 2019/20, but the change was never reflected constitutionally.

Summary of issue:
We really really really should not track changes in the pdf blob.

'Remove Housing Evaluations' vote passed without any given amendment text. In order to apply this change I'll need a new pull request aside from #50 to be opened that contains the proper commits.

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:
In section 4.C.1.h, it says that it is Eboard's responsiblity to

To respect the privacy of House members confiding in the Executive Board, barring situations related to endangerment of oneself or others, sexual assault, or in the case of a Judicial Board

But this year Eboard does act as mandatory reporters, and it would be a good idea to rewrite this to reflect that change. Though it might just stay the same, I want to be very sure that that definition and RIT's definition of a mandatory reporter line up.

Articles.tex:20

\externaldocument{articles}[https://github.com/bencentra/Constitution/blob/master/articles.pdf?raw=true]

Update the articles to point to production bylaws

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:
Reading over the terms of membership and eboard, seems there are two weird inconsistencies.
https://github.com/ComputerScienceHouse/Constitution/blob/master/articles.tex#L512

The term of an officer will be abbreviated due to resignation, impeachment, failure of the evaluation process, or change in membership status.

Does failing Spring Evals end the term of the officer? Current practice has been that they keep the position until the end of the year, regardless of Spring Evals.
Then there is a contradiction here, I think.
https://github.com/ComputerScienceHouse/Constitution/blob/master/articles.tex#L200

Active Membership shall last until the member: resigns, fails the Evaluation Process, or changes membership status.

Contradicts here:

https://github.com/ComputerScienceHouse/Constitution/blob/master/bylaws.tex#L296

If the member has previously passed an Membership Evaluation they will move to Alumni Membership status at the end of the Standard Operating Session (\ref{Alumni Membership Selection}).

Your active membership term ends if you "fail the Evaluation Process." But, you move to Alumni Membership at the end of the semester. So, do you still get to vote?

Check one:

• Semantic Issue: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Issue: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of issue:
Someone should hit the delet this button on the two stale branches in this repo, unless we're keeping them around for some reason

https://github.com/ComputerScienceHouse/Constitution/blob/master/articles.tex#L141

Receive priority over whom?
Also, are only active members on co-op allowed to come back on floor? Does that mean Harlan needs to pay dues to become an active member in order to be able to move on floor, meaning they pay dues for when they are not here?

Also, we don't define anywhere that an alum in good standing can just pay dues and become an active member again. We actually never define what an alum in good standing is. We only say how you become one.

Grammar error. https://github.com/ComputerScienceHouse/Constitution/blob/master/articles.tex#L168 Are not subject "to" any evaluations.

The constitution is one of those documents that should be easy for a freshman walking in to CSH during the first week to make a PR to with very little git or unix experience. We should add instructions in the README or create a CONTRIBUTING.md that simply adds some info like that you need to modify the .tex files first, you must have pdflatex installed and then you must run make twice before committing and making a PR. Something like that would really lower the barrier for people to help with the constitution.

When I try to access the website at http://csh.rit.edu/committees, the following error is thrown:

Not Found

The requested URL /committees was not found on this server.