Re: Proposal G
* Raul Miller (email@example.com) [040602 12:40]:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:27:58AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > However, as the 3:1-majority is needed anyways(*), I don't mind to add
> > something like:
> > In the opinion of the Secretary, this proposal overrules the social
> > contract, and needs therefor a 3:1-majority. In the opinion of the
> > proponent, it doesn't overrules the social contract, but just put more
> > siginficance on the interests of our users (as in SC #4).
> When there's a dispute about the constitution (and the 3:1 majority issue
> is a constitutional thing), the secretary chooses the right
As I said, I accepted the 3:1-majority-requirement (because disputing
it wouldn't help anything).
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C