APE0 modification: clarify that modifying roles itself requires two week comment period

[eteq]

trafficstars

This is a very small change that I think makes APE0 clearer. It's not really worth the trouble of an APE0 change on its own, but I'm proposing this because tat the 2024 Coordination Meeting we agreed #89 would be done as multiple votes in the next election round, so this PR can be added as just one more vote.

(The actual change itself also came from some discussions at the 2024 Coordination Meeting)

The change is not meant to be substantive, but rather to clarify that how we have been interpreting this sentences is what APE0 actually meant. That is, it was intended that the two week period apply to creating roles and making appointments, and the as-written wording was just ambiguous what the "to" applies to.

[hamogu]

@eteq and I talked about this and decided to make this it's own PR. It technically needs to be voted on, but -as @pllim says- it's not supposed to change the meaning, just the wording, while #89 does change the meaning.

[pllim]

It's been a month and no objection. Can we merge?

[hamogu]

No, any changes to APE0 need a vote by the membership.

[ceb8]

Merged per vote by mambership.