On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:29:36AM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > Le Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:00:57AM +0100, Ansgar a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > the Constitution has several supermajority requirements that seem > > excessive to me: > > > > Constitution changes: > > > > +--- > > | 4.1.2: Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. > > | [...] > > | 5.1.5.3: A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. [...] > > +--- > > > > Constitutional changes to my country's constitution only require a 2:1 > > majority. A 3:1 majority seems excessive for that reason and I would > > suggest to change both of these to 2:1 for that reason. > > > > I think a supermajority is fine for changing fundamental rules, so more > > than a simple majority is okay. > > Note that so far in almost no cases a GR failed due to the supermajority > requirement. > So it is difficult to read your proposal without thinking you have > ulterior motives, that maybe you should communicate ? +1. It's be nice to know if there are any recent GRs that had 2:1 supermajority but *not* 3:1 and it failed due to the same. Best, Nilesh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature