On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:51:59PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Very simple "English" question. Please elucidate me. > > Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1 > super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look > inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact. > > I am talking following sections: [...] > > Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and > > 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. > > agree with a 2:1 majority. > > + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates > > Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and > > 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. > > agree with a 2:1 majority. > > + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
I concur with the global replacement of "super-majority" with "majority". It was (IMO) a flaw in Manoj's original proposal that I did not manage to notice when proposing editorial alterations. Because "majority" is well-defined within the Constitution's Standard Resolution Procedure, it is redundant and possibly confusing to use the term "super-majority" (which, if we did use, shouldn't have a hyphen in it). -- G. Branden Robinson | For every credibility gap, there is Debian GNU/Linux | a gullibility fill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Richard Clopton http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
