From ac450535a61e33c32d247b8fdc4e012228392d3a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: gabby Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 13:49:48 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Change amendments to the values to require an SC supermajority There are two main rationales behind this change: - It doesn't make sense for amendments to the values to require a higher threshold than amendments to the Constitution, given that the Constitution governs amendments to the values Whether or not people believe that this Constitutional amendment *should* pass, the fact that this amendment *could* pass with a 5/7 vote highlights why the 90% requirement does not actually exist in practice. - The first draft of the values was not approved by 90% of the community It seems weird to privilege the first draft of the values when it never had to clear the same bar as amendments to the values. --- doc/constitution.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/constitution.md b/doc/constitution.md index 833a094..2344170 100644 --- a/doc/constitution.md +++ b/doc/constitution.md @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ Furthermore, the SC decides on the Election Committee (EC) with a 2/3 supermajor Disqualifications of candidates in an election requires supermajority among the currently serving SC members. -Substantial amendments to the Nix Community Values require 90% agreement in a poll among eligible voters. Deciding that an amendment is not substantial can be done by unanimity among a full SC. +Substantial amendments to the Nix Community Values requires a supermajority of a full SC. #### Ordinary decisions