Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:19:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Can the Secretary clarify again what will hapen if Peter's option is voted ?
> - What if Peter does not think that a second vote is necessary, but the
> Secretary does ?
> - What if a second vote is organised, but not option gets a 3:1 majority ?
> - What if no second vote is organised ?
> - What if Peter's option is voted with less than a 3:1 majority ?
Is this really so important? If a 3:1 majority that supports this exists,
they can easily ammend the SC as they see fit, possibly with another GR to
decide whether to ammend it or just override it.
If a simple majority exists, but not a 3:1 one, then we're in for stormy
weather. Too bad. Note that I don't like 3:1 requisites either , but
since I had to accept it when it was against my preferred choice , it's
only fair that others do the same now.
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."