On Sun May 10 04:13, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hmm, I wouldn't second this in its present form because I don't see any > reason to change the supermajority requirement for amending the constitution > - I don't think anyone has ever disputed the meaning of this requirement, > and it's been there since well before the Foundation Documents supermajority > requirement was instituted. But I would strongly consider seconding (as one > option among many) a proposal to remove the 3:1 supermajority requirement > for amending Foundation Documents, because I think the most recent fiasco > has given cause to reevaluate the reasons we required a supermajority in the > first place. Yes, I was wondering if that was a good idea. Do you want to draft that? Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature