Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one
error and duplicate section numbering"):
> Having given this some more thought, I believe I've come to understand
> why you don't see this to be such a crazy idea as I believe it is.
...
> This works for votes where the electorate (either the TC or all DD's for
> a GR) wish to overrule some other developer's opinion. If the overruling
> vote wins and makes supermajority, then the other developer in question
> has been overruled. If the overruling vote wins but does *not* make
> supermajority, we in effect ask the other developer in question to
> either "please" or "pretty please, with sugar on top" (depending on
> whether the TC or the project as a whole voted) change things, without
> requiring said change.
Exactly.
> Things become rather murky, however, when we're voting on a change to
> the constitution or a Foundation Document, which also requires a 3:1
> supermajority.
>
> If a vote to make a change the constitution wins, but does not make its
> required supermajority, then what? Did we just add a paragraph "we think
> this is a good idea, but you're not required to follow this bit of
> procedure" to the constitution? That seems pointless, and would probably
> make the constitution very hard to read if it happens a lot.
Which is why in those cases my proposal does not do that.
> Do we throw said change away? We probably can't, because it's still a
> non-binding resolution, or something.
In these cases, my proposal produces `FD'.
> Put otherwise, the idea of a "non-binding change to the constitution"
> seems to make no sense.
I entirely agree.
> In other words, while I understand where you're coming from and why you
> believe this change is desirable, I think it does have some dangerous
> side effects that you may not have considered. I therefore strongly urge
> you (and everyeone who's seconded the original proposal) to reconsider,
> and decide whether you really believe the above-described scenario is in
> any way desirable, and I further urge you to come up with a solution to
> that problem before this is brought to a vote.
I think if you read my proposal again you will see that it doesn't
have the bad effect you identify.
Ian.
