Anchor document

{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "authors": {
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@context": {
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature",
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm"
          },
          "@id": "CIP100:witness"
        }
      },
      "@id": "CIP100:authors"
    },
    "body": {
      "@context": {
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          },
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates"
        },
        "references": {
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@context": {
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest"
              },
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash"
            },
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri"
          },
          "@id": "CIP100:references"
        }
      },
      "@id": "CIP100:body"
    },
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256",
  "body": {
    "comment": "I am voting \"No\" yet again on this amendment to the constitution and the reasons are largely the same as my previous votes.  Please see my previous explanations.  Many of the grammatical and other smaller changes are marginal improvements.  I may even be inclined toward some of the larger changes.  However, on balance, I cannot agree with this overall amendment to the constitution.   I do not agree with many of the substantive changes.  They are not unreasonable or illogical.  But, they do not seem like an improvement from my perspective.  For instance, and as I have already explained with every past version of this amendment, I value much of the aspirational language that has been deleted.  The Cardano Community is an aspirational community.  Its constitution should also be aspirational.  Some of the verbiage changes do not seem necessary at all.  It seems like someone just wanted to change the language to suit their own style and preferences.  I do not believe we should be changing the constitution just to satisfy someone's minor word choice preferences without some overriding purpose.  The constitution was a huge undertaking for the Cardano Community and we should only be changing it if there is some substantial reason.  I also do not believe this is an acceptable method to propose changes to a legal document.   I have mentioned this over and over again with each iteration of this proposed amendment.   An inline \"tracked changes\" redline is the standard for proposing changes in this type of legal document.   The side-by-side document method is a terrible method for showing changes in a legal document.   The original version of a section may show up several pages above the new edited version.  This is essentially unreadable if you are actually trying to understand the changes and would be laughed out of the room in most legal settings since it's a great tool to obscure the true magnitude of changes.  Inline \"tracked changes\" redlines are the standard and should be used with something as important as the Cardano constitution.  Again, I have mentioned this over and over again with each new version of this amendment.   Here's an example of an inline \"tracked changes\" redline in a lawmaking setting:   https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/rules.house.gov/files/documents/bill-to-bill_bills-119pih_to_rcp_119-3_final.pdf.   That is the way that changes to legal documents should be presented so that they can be read in a comprehensible manner. "
  }
}