|
Grex > Coop13 > #114: Proposal: delay before re-voting on a topic already submitted to vote | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 44 of 79:
| 
Feb 10 03:40 UTC 2004 |
SHEEESH. Do you know the difference between commenting on the *thoughts* in
a post as compared to the *poster*? Trust me, I know who I directed #39
toward, and if it only "reaches" you then I will be sorely disappointed.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 45 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:46 UTC 2004 |
I tend to identify with my thoughts.
I'd really rather that item authors be allowed to remove their items,
including any responses that others might have made. But I don't think that
is going to happen. I've made a proposal to prevent it, even. Why not
work to have the proposal I've made pass? Why continue the histrionics?
Or do you really think it's helping?
|
krj
|
|
response 46 of 79:
|
Feb 10 07:26 UTC 2004 |
I'm leaning towards aruba's wording in resp:12 for the implementation of
my proposal.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 47 of 79:
|
Feb 10 09:25 UTC 2004 |
re38: dude, people DID make copies.
|
jp2
|
|
response 48 of 79:
|
Feb 10 11:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 49 of 79:
|
Feb 10 12:48 UTC 2004 |
You're interested in little boys?!
|
remmers
|
|
response 50 of 79:
|
Feb 10 13:53 UTC 2004 |
Instead of involving voteadm and the board in whether a proposal is
"voteable" or not, I'd prefer a process that leaves control of that
in the hands of the members themselves. How about something like
this, added to the bylaw on member proposals:
In order for a member proposal to be voted on, at least
10% of the membership must endorse bringing the proposal to
a vote. Endorsement shall consist of a statement by the
member in the proposal item, agreeing that the proposal
should be voted on. A member may withdraw his or her
endorsement at any time prior to the start of voting.
This is an online analog of the petitions required by various
states to get issues on the ballot.
I mean, voteadm might think that something shouldn't be voted on,
or the board might think that something shouldn't be voted on, but
if 10% of the members think it should, then it probably should.
On the other hand, if the proposer can't even get 10% of the
membership to agree that it should be voted on, it probably
shouldn't.
The sentence about withdrawing endorsement covers the case where
a member likes the first version of the proposal but not the
final wording.
|
other
|
|
response 51 of 79:
|
Feb 10 13:57 UTC 2004 |
Excellent suggestion, remmers! I endorse it fully. (As presently
phrased.)
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 52 of 79:
|
Feb 10 14:06 UTC 2004 |
Do we know that ten per cent of the membership regularly reads the coop
conference?Also, this seems to diverge from Grex's tradition of giving privacy
to voters; might a vote to agree to vote on an issue, however subtly, be
considered giving support to the proposal?! These and other issues are what
Grex needs to think about.
|
jp2
|
|
response 53 of 79:
|
Feb 10 14:06 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 54 of 79:
|
Feb 10 14:15 UTC 2004 |
I like that too - thanks remmers.
To jep - I don't know that voteadm has any "official" status, so that was a
problem with the way I worded it, you're right. John's idea is a better
one.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 55 of 79:
|
Feb 10 16:20 UTC 2004 |
How do we determine "membership"? At least one member does not seem to use
the loginid which possesses the membership.
|
slynne
|
|
response 56 of 79:
|
Feb 10 16:41 UTC 2004 |
I really like remmer's idea in resp:50.
resp:55 I think we can work through that. Either we can require that
the endorsement come from the login id that has the membership or we
can accept it if someone (say a staff member) vouches for the loginid
which doesnt possess the membership.
|
gull
|
|
response 57 of 79:
|
Feb 10 16:48 UTC 2004 |
I like the idea in resp:50.
Re resp:52: Think of it as signing a petition. By definition it's a
public process. This doesn't conflict with the eventual vote being a
secret ballot; it's perfectly legitimate to sign a petition that you
eventually vote against.
Re resp:55: I would say that any member who wished to endorse a petition
would have to do so as the loginid that holds the membership. It's not
exactly a big hardship.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 58 of 79:
|
Feb 10 16:57 UTC 2004 |
The treasurer can tell which login ids are current members. The treasurer
can also tell if a current participant has a login id that holds the
membership that is different from the login id that they are using in this
conference.
If a member wants the "pseudo" login endoresement to count, the member sends
an email to the treasurer saying "Hi, I'd like the endoresement I entered in
coop as pseudoid to count as my member endorsement". As long as this email
comes from the Grex memberid account, we should be fine.
the only caveat is that some people are creating accounts that look to be
attempts to mislead people. For example there is a new account, va1erie, that
on first glance might be valerie. I doubt that it's really Valerie Mates who
created the "va1erie" account, since I noticed a posting from the misleading
account that didn't sound at all like Valerie.
The treasurer would just have to be awake at the switch.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 59 of 79:
|
Feb 10 16:59 UTC 2004 |
Gull slipped in.
I don't think gulls opinion about whether its a hardship or not should be
binding on the member who wants to maintain a separate identity for
membership. Let each member make up their own mind.
|
jp2
|
|
response 60 of 79:
|
Feb 10 17:03 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 61 of 79:
|
Feb 10 17:40 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, it's not a big deal to connect people with memberships.
|
tod
|
|
response 62 of 79:
|
Feb 10 18:47 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 63 of 79:
|
Feb 10 18:51 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 64 of 79:
|
Feb 10 19:08 UTC 2004 |
Let's take remmers' idea out for a spin, shall we? How many members would
have given endorsement to jp2's and jep's proposals? I would have endorsed
jp2's proposal. I'm not sure I would have endorsed jep's - not because I was
against it, but because I considered item restoration to be covered by jp2's
proposal, and saw no reason for special treatment of jep's items.
Other members?
|
other
|
|
response 65 of 79:
|
Feb 10 19:21 UTC 2004 |
I would have endorsed jp2's proposal the first time, and voted against
it. I would not have endorsed jep's proposal the first time, and I
voted against it as well.
|
slynne
|
|
response 66 of 79:
|
Feb 10 21:45 UTC 2004 |
I would have endorsed both proposals and would have voted against both
of them. I wouldnt endorse jp2's most recent proposal.
|
mbroggy
|
|
response 67 of 79:
|
Feb 10 22:39 UTC 2004 |
I'd like to back remmer's idea; it's both a low enough percentage to
get backing for a proposal and likely high enough to screen some
things that might count just as noise.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 68 of 79:
|
Feb 10 23:22 UTC 2004 |
P.S. No need to indicate how you would have, did, or would *vote* on the
proposals (unless you want to). Just trying to gauge whether or not you would
have *endorsed* the proposals, i.e. supported being allowed to be taken to
a vote.
|