[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one error and duplicate section numbering

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:12:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>    (i) Delete most of A.6(3) (which implemented the supermajority
>    by dropping options at an early stage).  Specifically:
>       - Move A.6(3)(1) (the definition of V(A,B)) to a new subparagraph
>         A.6(3)(0) before A.6(3)(1).
>       - Remove the rest of A.6(3) entirely, leaving A.6(2) to be
>         followed by A.6(4).

Those 2 things conflict.  First you create a A.6(3)(0), then you
say there is no A.6(3) left.  Please clarify what you mean.

>      +       the consequences set out alongside the majority
>      +       requirement (or, if unspecified, the default option
>      +       wins).

Where are those consequences documented?  This is about the
non-binding statements?

>    (v) In
>        * 6.1(4) (Technical Commitee power to overrule a Developer)
>        * 4.1(4) (Developers' use of TC powers by GR) (if another
>            constitutional amendment has not abolished that
>            supermajority requirement)
>    in each case after the "N:M majority" add
>      +   ; failing that, the prospective winning resolution text becomes
>      +   a non-binding statement of opinion.

So I understand that if there is no winner, and so maybe not
even a normal majority (that doesn't even exist anymore?) for it,
it becomes a statement of opinion?

(Or I might be totally confused about the effects of all the
changes you're doing.  Those are all non-obvious changes that seem
to change more than the things you want to fix.)


Reply to: