I am missing the part about an undoubtful votum that there'll be only one unified Council after all which resides within MC e.V. and not in outlaw land. I believe this needs clarification since some people here claim that Council is just an aggregation of interests which shall never be servant to any kind of assiciation, but it's leader. 7 months and 30 pages later, this is considered "noise" (unless I misunderstood that part). Not exactly fast, but it shows there's hope...
Still, I'd prefer to be on the safe side and have some kind of avowal for MC e.V. in the referendum.

In MC e.V., the Bylaws (which are supperior to General Regulations) grant sovereignity over General Regulations to GA and Council election rules (§ 4.1) are part of that. This fact seems to be part of the critique for those claiming "compatibilty" issues. In order to make a referendum the *only* option to amand them, Council election rules would need to be seperated from General Regulations (just like there are Board Regulations). I have no objections to this, the only thing is, this can't be subject to a referendum, it requires a descission by GA, so persuade them and this may be resolved too. Why shouldn't community determine it's election procedure for its' representavive on it's own? You have my voice for that.