Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > This paragraph helped me realize that you see my proposal as a > substantive change over the current rules for the original GR proposer. > I hadn't entirely realized that it was, and I see that I missed some > subtlety in current rules, so I went back and reviewed them. I believe > the implications of the current constitution (which I think was also in > effect in 2008) are:
> 1. The original proposer of the GR can only change the text themselves if > all the sponsors agree (A.1.5) Oh, wait, no, it's even more complicated than that, because I think A.1.5 only applies to the *amendments* and not to the original text. So I think you need K+1 people to make any change to the original GR text (other than A.1.6 minor changes), but the proposer can make changes to the *amendments* provided that all sponsors agree. Each time I think I understand the current constitutional rules, I realize that I missed something. (I think the rest of the analysis still holds, although my change is more complicated than making point 1 apply to all ballot options.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
