Re: Summary of voting irregularities
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 04:01:09PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 2. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly issuing a new Social
> > Contract, and thus allowed with "simple" majority.
>
> Indeed, this is the case.
>
> > 3. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly modifying the
> > Constitution, and thus allowed with a 3:1 supermajority
>
> There is no basis in the Constitution for this position and it is
> negated by §4.1(5).
It is still not clear that "issue" includes modification.
Buddha's post was an excellent summary of the situation.
Perhaps we should vote on the constituitional changes first;
then we will know exactly what type of majority is required
for your GR.
On the other hand, if Anthony's amendment passes, the
situation is quite clear. However, we should vote on
the constituitional changes anyway.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: