> So 51% is inexact, although in the current configuration with 3 > members it works. And I've calculcated that we need at least 51 members > to have a possible vote issue between 50 and 51% :). > > BTW, shouldn't you have answered to [email protected] instead ?
My bad, I thought I did. Ok, you did the math :) We can surely change "51%" by "more than half" if you want. > True. But Sylvain asked to be part of the "political bureau" because > he's an active supporter of Gna! and highly motivated to support and > enforce the constitution. He didn't mean to rewrite history, but he will > certainly want to write what's next and I don't think I could deny him > that. I'm only pointing out that constitutive members != political members. constitutive members = founding members. Founding members have only one specificity: their unanimous agreement is required for constitutional changes. Not even for regular votes. Consider that they just have a veto right on the constitution, nothing else. Sylvain is already plainly entitled to write what's next. He can, for instance, propose and vote for amendments on the constitution. He is clearly an active member as described in the constitution. As such, he has the same rights and weights as anyone else. He just does not have the ability to veto a constitutional change. In my opinion, the "political bureau" is any active member and I'm not at ease with the enlargement of the list of people entitled to veto. I guess "active members" description should be in the preamble instead of inside article 5. -- Mathieu Roy _______________________________________________ Project mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/project
