Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5

[Buddha Buck <bmbuck@14850.com>]

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> 	A suggested ballot for the secretary to consider is:
> - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>  [ ] YES to proposal A:             Foundation + issue/modify/withdraw
>        Amend the constitution to introduce Foundation Documents, allow
>        the  developers  to issue, modify and withdraw  them with a 3:1
>        super majority,  and to allow the  developers to issue,  modify
>        and  withdraw all other non technical  documents  with a simple
>        majority   
>  [ ] YES to proposal B                      issue/modify/withdraw only
>        Amend the constitution to allow the developers to issue, modify
>        and withdraw all non technical documents with a simple majority        
>  [ ] Further discussion
> - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Shouldn't this include a "No" option as well as "Further Discussion"?

I'd also like a description of the process that will be followed to 
determine the outcome of the vote.  The Condorcet method specified in 
the Constitution is clear about such things in the case of a GR, where 
only a majority is required.  How does it work when two of the ballot 
options require a supermajority to pass?

-- 
     Buddha Buck                             bmbuck@14850.com
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects."  -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice