I do not know if this is required, but, I second the minor typographical change. It is good to be consistent.
-john Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:51:59PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > 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. > > [as discussed with Manoj on IRC] > > I hereby request that the Project Secretary amend the "Proposal C" > ballot option, which I proposed, to use the term "majority" instead of > "super-majority". > > I further suggest that any permutation of the term "super-majority", > including "supermajority" and "super majority", also be altered to > "majority" in those portions of the ballot which are not options. > > Sorry to delay the onset of voting for this.
pgpK0ZQJMOYll.pgp
Description: PGP signature
