{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP100:body",
      "@context": {
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP100:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash",
              "@context": {
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest",
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
              }
            }
          }
        },
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates",
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@id": "CIP100:witness",
          "@context": {
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [],
  "body": {
    "comment": "As one of the delegates that fought for the inclusion of Article VIII, the following amendment's effort is welcomed, yet fails to meet the intended pathway for such changes to occur:\n\n\"The Cardano Community is encouraged to periodically review and debate its\nprovisions, and when so desired, come together in such forums as the Cardano\nCommunity may deem appropriate, to propose amendments to this Constitution.\nAmendments may be made as provided in this Article VIII.\"\n\nAt the time of writing, it was brought up that amendments issued by singular entities would, and probably should, experience a high level of scrutiny, making it very difficult to pass.  This is why it was important, in my view, to make amendment proposals as a group, with as much engagement of the community as possible.  The following being presented by a representative of high stake should not be taken lightly, particularly in the vulnerable stages of governance we currently reside.\n\nThe proposed changes are viewed highly inconsequential:\n\n1. Perceived \"typos\" and \"clarifications\" add no further influence on the CC's interpretation of the Constitutional text\n\n2. Definitions have no direct authority over the CC's determination and therefore should not be part of the text. \n\n3.  The perceived \"requirement\" of Info Actions within the Budget Process is the interpretation of the proposer that is already contrary to the terms declared within the Constitutional text.  \"Expected\" is not a requirement, yet a strong suggestion that may welcome scrutiny when not followed.  \n\n4.  The \"Code of Conduct\" is not something I ever wanted within the text, but this was already voted on the community to be included, despite pushback.  I initially was concerned about the weaponization of such text by blocking dRep votes, but the CC is not afforded this capability, and this reveals the fact moderation happens at the delegator level- delegators will judge dReps/delegates based on their perceived \"Code of Conduct\" with or without this being included in the text, and therefore has no affect aside from the already existing social pressure delegators are subject to."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}