Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Hi,
Raul Miller schrieb:
>>This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says "if the
>>resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1".
> The only silliness is the verb tenses. Once some concept passes
> supermajority it doesn't need to pass again, because it has already
> passed.
By what rule?
The problem case is where the option has majority, but fails
supermajority. It could then be argued that since it has majority, it
constitutes proof that there should never have been a supermajority
requirement and thus the simple majority suffices, or it could be argued
that it failed supermajority, hence modifies a foundation document,
hence requires supermajority. And it *will* be argued, no doubt.
Simon
Reply to: