"Garrett Rooney" <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
> On 7/15/06, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-org@farside.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 09:38:02AM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
>> > On 7/15/06, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-org@farside.org.uk> wrote:
>> > >On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 05:32:10AM -0700, rooneg@tigris.org wrote:
>> > >> +two-thirds (66.67%) affirmative vote of all Active Members at the
>> > >
>> > >Do we _really_ need to define what 'two-thirds' means?
>> >
>> > Don't look at me, the lawyers wrote that part ;-)
>>
>> Okay, then would the lawyers be happy to remove it? I can't see how it
>> helps to define what 'two-thirds' means, especially since the definition
>> isn't actually correct :-)
>
> Honestly, I have no idea, and since there are enough actual things
> that the lawyers seem to want tweaked before we can move forward on
> this stuff, I have little to no inclination to put more changes in
> front of them ;-)
>
> Perhaps our resident legal expert can weigh in on the matter ;-)
I'm not our resident legal expert, but my guess is the idea is to
avoid boundary conditions. Though even then it would be enough to
just say "not less than two-thirds", there's certainly no ambiguity
there (no fractional person issues). *shrug* +1 on removing it as
long as lawyers approve.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: svn-org-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: svn-org-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jul 16 05:41:53 2006