Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > This GR actually changes the SC, and thus is done according to the > constitution § 4.1.5 and requires 3:1 majority to pass... > > This may be bad, since we've just changed the SC, and we actually don't > want to change it back. (It may be bad publicity too) > > Can't we have a GR that simply overrules aj's decision about his personal > interpretation of the SC (according to the constitution § 4.1.3) and simply > reaffirms that the changes done to the social contract are only editorial, > and are done to clarify its meaning?
See Jeroen's posting on -devel, -vote and -release, Message-ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. He has proposed exactly that. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
