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

Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5

On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:23:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 08:29:17AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > 1. Your proposal allows any nontechnical document defined by 4.1.5
> >    to be modified
> ...and withdrawn...
> > 2. Manoj's proposal allows nontechnical documents to be modified;
> ...and withdrawn...
> >    a subset of these, known as foundation documents, require a 3:1
> >    majority to be modified; the others require no special majority.
> >    In addition, the list of foundation documents requires a 3:1
> >    majority to modify.
> >
> > Is this a fair summary?
> Yes.  As you can see they are not "opposite" in any sense.  Both would
> permit non-technical documents to be explicitly modified and withdrawn.
> Manoj's further creates a class of non-technical documents that receive
> special treatment.  I see no reason this can't be proposed and voted on
> separately, for the reasons I provided in my rationale statment.

huh, ...

That means if you are in favor of the second proposal, but not in favor of the
first, you still have to vote for the first proposal, in hope that the second
would also pass. 

Why not have only one vote, which propose both proposal as choices ?

Or maybe i did misunderstand something.



Reply to: