Two-thirds resolution (Passed)

[windjammer]

I currently disagree with the proposal.
I mean, if there are 9 senators, I believe only 6 senators should be needed.

[windjammer]

Definitely

[windjammer]

Aye. I dont understand you, Cris .

[windjammer]

Neither do it. The problem is not that 7 is two thirds of 10. The problem is, if there are just 9 senators, if it's still two thirds of ten (7) or just two thirds of nine (6).

AYE

2/3 of the sitting senators, so 6.

[windjammer]

Neither do it. The problem is not that 7 is two thirds of 10. The problem is, if there are just 9 senators, if it's still two thirds of ten (7) or just two thirds of nine (6).

2/3 of the sitting senators, so 6.

If that version is passed, yes. With the current line in place, not so much.

Oh yes, of course .

[windjammer]

Well, that's probably the first time it's not me who has a problem with barrier language .

[windjammer]

I would say we don't need that, as it already says "at least". In that hypothetical scenario of yours, 5 would be less than 2/3, so it would violate the "at least", so it would not be enough.

What Cranberry said.
If for instance there are 8 senators: we all know that 5 senators wouldn't be enough (not the 2/3 majority) but 6 senators would be enough (3/4).

So, I won't object to this precision, but that's a detail.

[windjammer]

Aye