Thanks for trying to explain Ax's point, Prim!
If we can only have a re-vote because of an unforeseen change in circumstances, then a change in circumstances that somebody foresaw would technically not be eligible for a revote.
I'm still lost, though.
If someone foresaw a change in circumstances, they'd surely say so before the vote. So such a change would of course be unforeseen.
And if the vote was accepted in spite of that, as you say, Cerin is right that it's possible that this is because the person wasn't listened to properly at the time - it's possible that the majority doesn't realise the consequences until later. So for them it's unforeseen.
But the text doesn't talk about unforeseen changes of circumstances at all!
It talks about
genuine change of circumstances!
If you go with this version, then I think you have to explain or give some examples of what 'genuine change of circumstances' means, or we're in for a heap of trouble.
Cerin here says what I said in this discussion earlier, too: this is almost impossible to define! The ramifications-clause makes it easier for a committee to decide that something really happened that allows for a revote.
Like Frelga said in her PM to Jny: circumstances are something external. In my reading, a change of circumstances would only be, for example, we move to another board and can't implement there what we had voted to implement.
Finding that a decision brings us trouble is something different.
Say we had forgotten that ToE should be adults only and decided by vote that it should be accessible to all.
Now we get a lawsuit about letting a minor see what's discussed there.
So we want to change that decision and have a vote to ban minors from ToE.
Is that a genuine change of circumstances? I don't think so!
But it's a ramification not previously recognised.