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

Re: request for correction of minor error in ballot option

I do not know if this is required, but, I second the minor typographical
change. It is good to be consistent.


Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:51:59PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
> > super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C?  They look
> > inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.
> [as discussed with Manoj on IRC]
> I hereby request that the Project Secretary amend the "Proposal C"
> ballot option, which I proposed, to use the term "majority" instead of
> "super-majority".
> I further suggest that any permutation of the term "super-majority",
> including "supermajority" and "super majority", also be altered to
> "majority" in those portions of the ballot which are not options.
> Sorry to delay the onset of voting for this.

Attachment: pgpAkgjWq5oZf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: