On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:35:02AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Jochen Voss] > > By the way, what was the meaning of "editorial" in > > "Editorial changes to the Social Contract GR"? > > Normally, in a political vote, "editorial change" is used to get > people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority > a better chance to get their vote passed while no-one is looking. Sad but this is true real life story. > Re-vote? I second re-vote. (If this is allowed.) I still feel like a bad looser by stating this though. (Also I wonder why 3:1 majority vote has the same low quorum as normal vote. Anyone can point me to previous thread?) Osamu PS: I do not think many did not understand these outcomes. I also do not believe this was intentional deception. Too much noise was there.
Description: Digital signature