[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

On Sun May 10 04:13, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hmm, I wouldn't second this in its present form because I don't see any
> reason to change the supermajority requirement for amending the constitution
> - I don't think anyone has ever disputed the meaning of this requirement,
> and it's been there since well before the Foundation Documents supermajority
> requirement was instituted.  But I would strongly consider seconding (as one
> option among many) a proposal to remove the 3:1 supermajority requirement
> for amending Foundation Documents, because I think the most recent fiasco
> has given cause to reevaluate the reasons we required a supermajority in the
> first place.

Yes, I was wondering if that was a good idea.

Do you want to draft that?


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: