* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040602 12:40]: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:27:58AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > However, as the 3:1-majority is needed anyways(*), I don't mind to add > > something like: > > In the opinion of the Secretary, this proposal overrules the social > > contract, and needs therefor a 3:1-majority. In the opinion of the > > proponent, it doesn't overrules the social contract, but just put more > > siginficance on the interests of our users (as in SC #4).
> When there's a dispute about the constitution (and the 3:1 majority issue > is a constitutional thing), the secretary chooses the right > interpretation. As I said, I accepted the 3:1-majority-requirement (because disputing it wouldn't help anything). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
