> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > "MS" => Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "CMC" => C.M. Connelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > CMC> I've made the following changes: > > CMC> 1. Added a 2:1 majority requirement to issue, modify, or > CMC> withdraw nontechnical policy documents. > > MS> I formally reject this change to my proposal. You shall > MS> need to create your own amendment and get seconds > MS> separately if you wish for this to be voted upon. > > That's fine. I would love to see some discussion before I went to > the trouble of putting together an amendment, however.
I'm not sure you meant it, but a "2:1 majority" requirement looks like a supermajority requirement -- twice as many supporters as opponents. Right now, a nontechnical policy document or statement can be issued with a simple majority (modulo the fact that the Condorcet method isn't as simple as "simple majority"). It does not require a supermajority. Requiring a 2:1 majority is a major change, and one that does not tie in well with Manoj's or Branden's proposals. Did you mean to create a supermajority requirement, or simply a majority requirement? > > CMC > > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > Behind the counter a boy with a shaven head stared vacantly into space, > a dozen spikes of microsoft protruding from the socket behind his ear. > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHC, DS > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and GNU Privacy Guard > <http://www.gnupg.org/> > > iD8DBQE6C3zzzrFKeh3cmQ0RAgzOAJ41wzIGE73+ifLsT4UeUFNqyU+NCgCfUh3X > lNSYBbm9vZ3jcf5uyW8lD6Q= > =+1f6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
