Let me first say that I think that three days from starting the discussion to starting the vote is a bit too short - sorry to have to say that!
Faramond has objected to the inclusion of #4. I have not glossed over this one-person objection (and in fact withheld this article from ratification because of it) because there is a principle involved in ¶4 and ¶5 which we failed to address during discussion. This would in fact be the only place in the Charter where we stated that one Article must be used to override another Article. A strong argument can be made, I think, that such a provision is not appropriate. If a provision of some other Article is to be over-ridden it should be done through an Amendment process.
I think this refers to question 3 in the ballot, but I don't understand a word of it, I'm afraid - it doesn't seem to be the same thing as in the ballot thread either.
As to the way it's explained in the voting thread: I already asked about that there - I don't understand how having the same point in two articles can end up being contradictory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I came here to look for a definition of "serious ramifications" - yes, it's broader than Voronwe's text, but also clearer, in that "change of circumstances" is more difficult to define than "unforeseen serious ramifications" for a committee having to decide on a re-vote.
So I like it.
Plus, I don't like that people could just up and decide to undo a vote because things aren't going quite as planned
Firstly, no one can just "up and decide to undo a vote here" - if you've followed the discussion on wilko's thread, you'll have seen how difficult the process is to get there.
Apart from that, however, in my opinion this is what democracy is all about - giving everybody a handle to try to change the course the community is going if they think it's going the wrong way.