| Grex > Coop13 > #114: Proposal: delay before re-voting on a topic already submitted to vote |
| response 70 of 79: | 
Feb 11 00:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 71 of 79: |
Feb 11 01:12 UTC 2004 |
Ken - it sounds to me like a lot of the people who voted for Jamie's proposal the first time don't want it brought to a vote the second time. So I think your first objection will take care of itself. If we had a group of 9 or more members who not only disagreed with policy but also wanted to be relentless about it, then yeah, we'd vote on the same thing over and over again. I suppose if that happens, we can try something else.
| response 72 of 79: |
Feb 11 03:09 UTC 2004 |
Most systems of parliamentary rules require that a motion at least be seconded before being voted on. I don't see a problem with requiring some minimal show of support before bringing an issue to a membership vote.
| response 73 of 79: |
Feb 11 04:10 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:69: I think the odds of it getting endorsed would fall rapidly with each iteration, as people lost interest. Under the current system, this doesn't matter; even if his proposal gets zero votes next time he puts it to a vote, he can still keep forcing it to a vote over and over. I would have endorsed both jp2 and jep's original proposals. I would not endorse jp2's second attempt.
| response 74 of 79: |
Feb 11 13:27 UTC 2004 |
The anonymous web reading votes were much closer to 50-50 to start. The revotes were, IIRC, tweaks that finally made the policy acceptable to a majority of members.
| response 75 of 79: |
Feb 17 01:45 UTC 2004 |
Yes.
| response 76 of 79: |
Feb 17 05:16 UTC 2004 |
I'm inclined to let this proposal die and defer to remmers' item:122.
| response 77 of 79: |
Feb 17 16:25 UTC 2004 |
Let that proposal die, and GreX will too.
| response 78 of 79: |
Feb 18 23:36 UTC 2004 |
let it die.
| response 79 of 79: |
May 17 02:14 UTC 2006 |
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE