Bug#636783: supermajority bug
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#636783: supermajority bug"):
> Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
> > The fix to the constitutional supermajority bug has been delayed
> > rather. Sorry about that. I have drafted what I think is an
> > implementation of our conclusions here and in the TC.
> > Opinions welcome.
> I haven't reviewed the wording in detail, but the general discussion and
> intent looks right to me. Thank you for drafting this!
I'd appreciate it if _someone_ would review the wording in detail, and
post to say that they'd done so. (That doesn't have to be a TC
member, of course.) It would be embarassing to have to fix this