|
Grex > Coop13 > #114: Proposal: delay before re-voting on a topic already submitted to vote | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 13 of 79:
| 
Feb 9 20:59 UTC 2004 |
Not necessarily so! If it is the will of Landrew, I mean the grex founders,
and current baff, that there be no hard & fast policies, that discretion rules
the day (carried out by overworked and underpaid grex volunteers), AND
that the "policy" of "no policies" is clearly communicated to grexers,
then I have no problems with running this "computer club" that way.
"Buyer beware". I just hope that running with no policies is acceptable for
a state non-profit corporation or whatever...
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 14 of 79:
|
Feb 9 21:02 UTC 2004 |
Don't you think it'll be more of a pain in the ass to go through a bigfat
appeals process than to just vote the repeats down?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 15 of 79:
|
Feb 9 21:08 UTC 2004 |
Or how about a different approach? Do not limit the *frequency* at which a
proposal may appear - just limit who may propose it. That would mean that
jp2 could not repeat his proposal, but if he could get another member to do
so, then so be it.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 16 of 79:
|
Feb 9 21:25 UTC 2004 |
No, I don't think that works at all. I'd much rather have the issue be the
standard, not the person.
|
other
|
|
response 17 of 79:
|
Feb 9 21:43 UTC 2004 |
There's a certain appeal to that idea. Keeping in mind that motions
must be made by members in order to be voted upon, why not simply
restrict the same member from posting the same proposal, or one with
substantially identical purpose and effect, more than one consecutive
time within the same 6-month period?
|
other
|
|
response 18 of 79:
|
Feb 9 21:44 UTC 2004 |
Colleen slipped in.
|
jep
|
|
response 19 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:16 UTC 2004 |
Is "voteadm" an official position, appointed by the Board? Are there
term limits, same as the treasurer and Board members and such? It
seems to me that remmers has always been the voteadm, and that he has
the position because he wrote the voting software. Is "voteadm" a
staff position, an administrative one, or what?
I certainly don't mean to imply anything against John Remmers, but I
think the questions are relevant to the proposal.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 20 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:25 UTC 2004 |
Something else that's relevent to the proposal is the conspiracy underway to
pass it.
I recently received a copy of a transcript of a conversation held between its
proposer and Society of Members of Old GreX member John Remmers:
krj: Hopefully I am creating the conditions so that my still-vague
proposal gets voted on in the same time period as Jamie 2.0
This indicates a concerted effort to trick users into passing his proposal,
not because it's good and wholesome (fibrous and thus easier to pass), but
because, he thinks, GreXists don't like jp2. remmers (user remmers) not only
agreed with this strategy, but, look at this:
remmers: The main effect is likely to be passage of your proposal. ;)
gave a wink (and, assuredly, a nod) to suggest that he would do almost
anything to see the proposal pass.
Why does the membership of New GreX stand for this nonsense?
|
jep
|
|
response 21 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:37 UTC 2004 |
Dang, I lost another lengthy posting; eaten by Backtalk.
Briefly, it seems to me the least intrusive thing to do would be to
allow a super-majority of the Board (5, 6 or 7 of 7) to dismiss a user
proposal, if they think it was intended as harrassment.
|
other
|
|
response 22 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:53 UTC 2004 |
#21 sounds reasonable and simple...
|
krj
|
|
response 23 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:55 UTC 2004 |
1) What's harrassment? Is Jamie's proposal 2.0 harrassment, or just an
unwillingness to concede defeat?
2) Board meetings, on a monthly cycle, don't necessary align with our
online voting cycle.
|
other
|
|
response 24 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:58 UTC 2004 |
the board could be permitted to agree online or by email and thereby
dispense with any vote that meets some minimum requirement of
similarity with a prior proposal which failed by a substantial margin.
Still some definition required, but reasonable wiggle room to not be
pinned to specific lines in the sand.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 25 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:59 UTC 2004 |
As demonstrated by 20, krj's proposal is the only one intended as harrassment.
|
jep
|
|
response 26 of 79:
|
Feb 9 23:00 UTC 2004 |
re resp:23: On-line voting can be done. Or the president can collect
votes by phone call, subject to confirmation by the Board members at
the next meeting.
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 79:
|
Feb 9 23:07 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 28 of 79:
|
Feb 9 23:38 UTC 2004 |
Without use of his right hand!
|
tod
|
|
response 29 of 79:
|
Feb 9 23:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 30 of 79:
|
Feb 9 23:46 UTC 2004 |
What about the parts where remmers and krj conspire to force the thing through
at all costs?! DIDN"T ANYOEN READ THEM!?
|
tod
|
|
response 31 of 79:
|
Feb 10 00:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 32 of 79:
|
Feb 10 01:54 UTC 2004 |
So is constipation, per response #30.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 33 of 79:
|
Feb 10 02:10 UTC 2004 |
I like the vote admin discretion, with supermajority board override.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 34 of 79:
|
Feb 10 02:58 UTC 2004 |
Has anyone made a proposal yet that if a psychotic person with root
access, but no specific authority, destroys any posts and/or items those
posts/items must be automatically restored while discussion is pending?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 35 of 79:
|
Feb 10 02:59 UTC 2004 |
No, because we don't think it necessary.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 36 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:01 UTC 2004 |
There is a fundamental principle here: If you don't trust the system's
administrators, don't use the system.
Rules can be broken. No amount of rules will prevent the rules being broken.
|
naftee
|
|
response 37 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:18 UTC 2004 |
Wait; what if a psychotic system administrator goes on a rampage deleting
files and crashing the system, then subsequently resigns from staff. Are we
still bound by what she...I mean, 'the person' did when they were still 'on
staff' ?
|