2.1 This may be difficult given math. It's possible the number of votes may not be presented in an exact 3 out of 4 fashion, there may be 5 of 7, and other percentages. This proposed sub ruleset should probably be revised. Also, it doesn't specify a given timeframe, and doesn't take into account growth and attrition of followers over a timeframe.

2.2 I'm concerned about the wording. It introduces needless complexity, which can be exploited and cause unforeseen complications. Would prefer, "Rules that receive the most votes shall be approved," but even then more specificity is needed.

2.3 Agree. In that while it may make instinctive sense to focus on one aspect of a complicated ruleset and follow through on that, discarding the previous, this tends to introduce unwanted disarray into the system. Logic traffic jams.

2.4 Can neither agree nor disagree, as I feel the words "rulesets", "modified", "sets", "transmutation", "amendent" and "repeal" should be explicitly defined.

2.5 How can this ruleset apply to previously proposed rules and rulesets...if the prior state of the system accepted different governing protocols, would this then mean anytime a substantial change is made to current rules, those then need to be retroactive, and everything in recorded annals needs to be changed?

Yes, I've worked for law firms.