Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My understanding of Darren's argument is that the original proposal
> (removal of non-free) would modify the Social Contract, which is
> considered to be "constitutional" in nature (and thus requires the 3-1
> majority to be modified). However, if aj's amendment were approved,
> the proposal would no longer amend the Social Contract and would be
> considered a normal general resolution subject to the GR rules.
aj's amendment basically does nothing :-)
However, his assumption is incorrect. More on this later.
-- John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
