Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
Guido Trotter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This GR actually changes the SC, and thus is done according to the
> constitution § 4.1.5 and requires 3:1 majority to pass...
> This may be bad, since we've just changed the SC, and we actually don't
> want to change it back. (It may be bad publicity too)
> Can't we have a GR that simply overrules aj's decision about his personal
> interpretation of the SC (according to the constitution § 4.1.3) and simply
> reaffirms that the changes done to the social contract are only editorial,
> and are done to clarify its meaning?
See Jeroen's posting on -devel, -vote and -release, Message-ID
<[🔎] 20040428020837.GD10117@A-Eskwadraat.nl>. He has proposed exactly that.
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie