|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 587 of 624:
| 
Feb 10 23:31 UTC 1997 |
Well, looking over #0 again, I guess it isn't. Pity, I was
hoping it would require 75%... >8)
|
richard
|
|
response 588 of 624:
|
Feb 11 02:00 UTC 1997 |
Andsinc eit isnt a bylaw amendment, both couldbe voted on ast the same time,
and one should get over 50%
But maybe theboard wants to vote first to decidew if this shouldbe a bylaw
amendment or not
|
richard
|
|
response 589 of 624:
|
Feb 11 02:26 UTC 1997 |
perhaps a vote should be postponed until cfadmin can take4 a straw poll of
all the conf fw's to see which confs and how many confs would want to be
closed? That would be instructive
|
rcurl
|
|
response 590 of 624:
|
Feb 11 06:57 UTC 1997 |
Whoops...I was too easily influenced... Why "should" one g et over 50%?
They could both be voted down (one can vote NO on the one one likes least).
|
dang
|
|
response 591 of 624:
|
Feb 11 19:39 UTC 1997 |
They don't need over 50%. If only one person votes, and votes yes, it passes.
Simple majority.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 592 of 624:
|
Feb 11 19:53 UTC 1997 |
That's what's been bothering me. The voting rules need to be specified more
clearly. Normally, a motion passes by a majority of those voting on the
motion voting for the motion. With two motions to vote upon, one *should*
be able to vote on both. If not, the rule still applies: each motion is
passed if a majority of those voting on that motion support it. This is
all pretty theoretical, since it remains that voting on two overlapping
motions simultaneously is a poor way to proceed.
|
remmers
|
|
response 593 of 624:
|
Feb 11 23:41 UTC 1997 |
Bear in mind that the bylaws require a minimum two-week
discussion period before voting on a proposal. So even if
somebody makes a new one *today*, the vote on the current one
will be over by the time we could start voting on the new one,
since I'm going to go set of the vote for the current proposal
right now.
|
remmers
|
|
response 594 of 624:
|
Feb 12 00:05 UTC 1997 |
Okay, the polls are now open. Type "vote" or "!vote" depending
on what kind of prompt you're at. Polls close at the end of the
day (Eastern Standard Time) on February 21.
|
remmers
|
|
response 595 of 624:
|
Feb 12 00:09 UTC 1997 |
Regretfully -- because I favor the principle of unregistered
read-access -- I've voted against the motion, primarily because
of clause 3. It opens up a can or two of worms, as well as
departing from the principle, steadfastly adhered to until now,
of uniform open access to all conferences.
|
dpc
|
|
response 596 of 624:
|
Feb 12 00:26 UTC 1997 |
I just voted for it; I think it's a reasonable attempt to provide
unregistered access which allows conferences to change their minds.
BTW--there is now *much* more activity in the Grex Coop
conference (and not just on this item) than there is in the
M-Net Policy conference! Strangely believe it.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 597 of 624:
|
Feb 12 01:04 UTC 1997 |
I voted against it. I will vote against any form of unregistered
reading. I just don't like the idea of it.
|
richard
|
|
response 598 of 624:
|
Feb 12 03:05 UTC 1997 |
Since this would change or modify grex's open access statuws, whic is
situplated in the preamble to thebylaws, perhaps this shouold be sconsidered
an amendment...and added to the bylaws if it passes
|
janc
|
|
response 599 of 624:
|
Feb 12 04:35 UTC 1997 |
I voted against it. Personally, I'd like to see unregistered reading on Grex,
but I don't think it is worth the unhappiness it would cause some people to
open all conferences, and opening some conferences and not others just causes
to many administrative headaches.
However, if the motion passes, I will implement it.
|
raven
|
|
response 600 of 624:
|
Feb 12 04:41 UTC 1997 |
I voted for it but alas I'm not a member so it does not count toward the
total.
|
valerie
|
|
response 601 of 624:
|
Feb 12 05:20 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
valerie
|
|
response 602 of 624:
|
Feb 12 05:49 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 603 of 624:
|
Feb 12 20:40 UTC 1997 |
Perhaps this item should be frozen if item 54 is for the new discussion?
|
snafu
|
|
response 604 of 624:
|
Feb 12 21:05 UTC 1997 |
you have to be a member to vote?
|
ryan1
|
|
response 605 of 624:
|
Feb 12 21:31 UTC 1997 |
Nope, you just need to be a member for your vote to count.
|
jenna
|
|
response 606 of 624:
|
Feb 13 00:14 UTC 1997 |
how long will the voting booth be open?
|
remmers
|
|
response 607 of 624:
|
Feb 13 10:51 UTC 1997 |
Through February 21.
|
valerie
|
|
response 608 of 624:
|
Feb 13 15:53 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
dpc
|
|
response 609 of 624:
|
Feb 14 01:55 UTC 1997 |
You mean there are actually people who *haven't* been following this
item? 8-)
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 610 of 624:
|
Feb 18 02:45 UTC 1997 |
By the way, Valerie, with the current wording, the proposal is no longer
"useless". In fact, the restriction on future conferences was my major
objection. I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough.
|
tsty
|
|
response 611 of 624:
|
Feb 25 11:05 UTC 1997 |
this item may or may not cease to accumulate responses. the fws will
not freeze it.
|