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
> (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.)