On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Francis Davey <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >> It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have >> to vote "yes", or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active >> contributors. >> > > It is extremely unlikely that any English court would think so.
I think you've missed the part that read "to me". > The phrase "a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors" would be > understood in its natural way, namely that 2/3 (or more) of all active > contributors must vote in favour of the change. Right, well, I thought someone was going to respond with "of course it's not 2/3 of all active contributors", so you've certainly confirmed to me that this is unclear, as in can be interpreted by non-lawyers in differing ways. > However changing "active contributors" to "all active contributors" > ought to dispel any shadow of a doubt on that point and does not read > unnaturally, so I'd suggest it as a change. That wouldn't make it any more clear to me. Removing the "majority vote" part would, though. On the other hand, the response by Frederik points out another ambiguity - what it means to "respond within 3 weeks" to an email. Also, the idea that the "vote" could be conducted via email is rather humorous. Can't wait to see the dispute over the "hanging chads" in that scenario. > NB: we've been asked to suggest changes to the CT's if we think they > are unclear. I cannot remember whether you caught that. I mentioned it when I noticed it. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
