On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 11:52:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > * A single vote, where the pairwise preferences for A against
> > "Further Discussion" (only) are scaled according to A's
> > supermajority requirements.
> F:A in A.6(7) stands for For:Against. Not Further Discussion : Option A.
I'm not claiming that the constitution as it stands can or should be
interpreted in this way. I'm suggesting it as a possible way things can
be done in future after the constitution in amended.
I have been, and continue to be, very conservative in how I'm willing
to interpret the constitution. I'd've thought you'd have noticed this
by now...
> > * A single vote, where the pairwise preferences for A against
> > all other options are scaled according to A's supermajority
> > requirement. [0]
> This is what A.3(3) specifies [given what's already said in A.3(1),
> A.3(2) and A.6(7)].
No, this is how you interpret A.3(3). That's a very different thing.
Is clear and obvious and not in any sort of dispute that "F" and "A", and
"A", "B" and "X" are metasyntactic variables. It's not at all obvious that
"Yes" and "No" are, no matter how strongly you might assert it.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Attachment:
pgpgW8QDcDyAX.pgp
Description: PGP signature