I understand the reasoning. But while §38, on the Renewal of Motions, exempts a motion that has been withdrawn by its maker from the restrictions on renewabilty, it does not mention motions that died for lack of a second. The reason given in the case of a withdrawal is that the assembly was never asked to decide the question. But in the case of a motion not seconded, the assembly did effectively make a decision. It decided, by its silence (unanimous dissent?) that the motion was not only unworthy of adoption, it was unworthy even of discussion. The case could therefore be made that the assembly should be protected from having to make this decision again on essentially the same question, which is the basic principle of nonrenewabilty. I think it would be reasonable to require that the motion be changed enough to present a substantially different question before it is offered again. Still, a wise chair might pause briefly before ruling a renewal of this kind out of order, just to see if someone takes the opportunity to second it this time. I don't think it's crystal clear either way on this one, nor is either way a real problem, frankly, but I think it would be nice if RONR mentioned this case explicitly. On the other hand, this tends to be fairly self-limiting. A motion dying for lack of a second often results in a maker dying of embarrassment, and probably unlikely to renew the exact same motion for that reason.