oh, ffs! 
this is so fucking tedious. tell you what, why don't we just stick the whole shebang out on the board and let everyone say what they want? of course, that means that you, cal and hardon will actually have to come up with a set of clear, specific and workable suggestions. and i'm serious - reading all this waffle is such a waste of energy.
Yay. Much better than just yawning. No objecting to making it open.
I came up with multiple suggestions. The first was, don't change the
rules without a vote. i.e. we let people in, like any other issue. Somehow,
the vote got accelerated. What defense is there? I don't know. My HOPE
was that those involved would see the wrong in their actions, and admit it,
thus reducing the likelyhood that this is all a precedent. Because without a
written constitution, precedent is ALL that we have. And this one is patterned
on the worst kind of oligarchies.
After McJ's interpretation, assuming that it stands, ALL decisions are no
longer made on the so called simple (yet undefined) vote, but just on
the rule that if three people support it, it passes.
, and quacks like a 