On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:36:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > The other option you're proposing here, to prevent them from doing what they > want to unless they have a 3:1 majority, reduces to "coerce the majority to > do what you say they should do, even though they don't think you're right". This argument is just as true for any other time a 3:1 majority would be used, such as when actually changing the document. Is your position that changing foundation documents should only require 1:1 as well? IMO it is very reasonable to use the same requirements for changing a document permanently of temporarily. How about using a temporary override for the rule that changing the constitution needs a 3:1 majority? I think everybody will agree that allowing that would be madness. If we do indeed want to change our constitution with simple majority, we should change it to say that (with 3:1 majority, of course). Note that this doesn't have much to do with the gr_lenny anymore. I'm only talking about cases where it's actually clear that a GR option is violating a foundation document, but isn't changing it. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature