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
