Hi, the Constitution has several supermajority requirements that seem excessive to me:
Constitution changes: +--- | 4.1.2: Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. | [...] | 5.1.5.3: A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. [...] +--- Constitutional changes to my country's constitution only require a 2:1 majority. A 3:1 majority seems excessive for that reason and I would suggest to change both of these to 2:1 for that reason. I think a supermajority is fine for changing fundamental rules, so more than a simple majority is okay. Developer overriding tech ctte: +--- | 4.1.4: Make or override any decision authorised by the powers of the | Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. +--- I think this is excessive: if a (simple) majority of developers is unhappy about some technical decisions, we should probably not do them. So in my opinion this should be a simple 1:1 majority. Tech ctte overriding a developer: +--- | 6.1.4: Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority). | | The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular technical | course of action even if the Developer does not wish to; this requires | a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may determine that a complaint | made by the submitter of a bug is justified and that the submitter's | proposed solution should be implemented. +--- I think this should only require a simple majority as well. Or at most 2:1, but I don't think there is a reason for it to be higher than a simple majority. Should we look at changing these? Ansgar
