Changes

|Summary=Accept that the verdict on suggested modifications is to be decided by a communal vote that will follow the discussion period. Have a communal discussion and decide as to what percentage of votes it should take for a modification to be accepted – a simple majority (50% +1), or supermajority of three fifths (60%), two thirds (67%), or three quarters (75%). Also discuss to decide as to how long the discussion period and the voting period should be.

|Preamble=TODO Have The current scientonomic workflow has no proper ''closure mechanism'', for it is ambiguous as to how verdicts on suggested modifications are to be achieved. Specifically, it is unclear as to what constitutes a communal discussion and decide ''consensus''. It is implicit in the current practice that ''consensus'' is understood as ''a lack of explicit objection'', i.e. if nobody objects to what percentage a suggested modification then even a handful of votes positive comments are sufficient to make the modification accepted. However, there are problems with this approach. Specifically, people may not want to accept the modification, but may not want to object to it should take ''explicitly'' for a variety of reasons. For instance, some people may not wish to be seen as impeding the modification to 's acceptance. If a modification is proposed or supported by a senior member of the community, then many - especially junior scholars - may feel uncomfortable criticizing it. It is also the case that different members of the community may have different “tenacity” when debating proposed modifications: some people may withdraw from a debate because they grow tired of arguing rather than because they are convinced. In addition, the current workflow imposes ''no time limits'' on when objections can be raised by. This creates two issues: in some cases suggested modifications are accepted – too quickly before dissent has a simple majority (50% +1)chance to emerge, or supermajority while in other cases suggested modifications are not accepted for a long time despite the lack of three fifths (60%)dissent. In short, two thirds (67%)without a proper closure mechanism or a time limit in place, suggested modifications can be accepted either prematurely or three quarters become abandoned. Thus, a solution is needed to ensure that the workflow has a proper closure mechanism and a time limit.|To Accept=Closure Mechanism - Time Limit and Communal Vote (75%Shaw-Barseghyan-2019).,