|
|
|
I propose that Article V of the bylaws be amended to read as follows:
ARTICLE 5: VOTING PROCEDURES
a. Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
designated for this purpose. The item is then used for
discussion of the motion. All Grex users may participate in
the discussion. No action on the motion is taken for two
weeks.
b. In order for the motion 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 discussion item agreeing that the motion should be voted
on. A member may withdraw his or her endorsement at any time
prior to the start of voting by so stating in the discussion
item.
c. When at least two weeks have passed and the necessary number
of endorsements have been obtained, the author may then
submit a final version for a vote by the membership.
The vote is begun as soon as feasible and is conducted online
over a period of ten days. If within thirty days from the
date of the motion the author does not request a vote or
the necessary endorsements have not been obtained, the motion
is considered to have lapsed and is not eligible for voting.
d. Simultaneous voting on two or more motions is permissible,
subject to limitations of the voting software. However,
two motions may not be voted on simultaneously if one
is contradictory to or implies a modification of effect
to the other. In such a case, the motion posted first shall
take precedence in voting order.
e. A motion will be considered to have passed if more
votes were cast in favor than against, except as provided
for bylaw amendments.
f. For voting purposes, a day will run midnight to midnight. In
the event of continuous system downtime of 24 hours or more,
the voting period will be adjusted to compensate.
71 responses total.
Comments: Sections b, d, and part of c are new provisions. Parts b and d are motivated by recent events. Section b requires that a minimal level of support be demonstrated prior to a vote, analagous to the "petition drives" required by various states in order to get citizen initiatives on the ballot. Wasn't ever needed in Grex's twelve previous years of existence, but hey, times change. Section c cleans up a loose end by specifying a definite point in time when a proposal "expires" if it hasn't come to a vote. Section d is an attempt to favor order over chaos. There's no explicit provision in this proposal for delays in revoting the same issue. I realize that Ken (krj) has proposed this, and agree that such revotes are a potential nuisance, but I'm hoping that the endorsement requirement takes care of the problem indirectly. I can also conceive of situations where a quick revote on "substantially the same issue" could be desirable, so I'm reluctant to exclude it explicitly. I'll be honest. I'm motivated to an extent by the desire not to have the voteadm job become a pain in the posterior. However, you should of course discount any selfish concerns on my part and evaluate this proposal on its merits. I'm certainly open to suggestions for changes. Discuss...
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Read the bylaws! :) 3/4 of votes cast. I think it's implicit that a bylaw doesn't apply to anything done when it wasn't in effect.
John, just looking ahead to the actions of some professional nitpickers: you don't actually say that a withdrawn endorsement doesn't count toward the 10%. And if (say) more than 10% endorse, but then some withdraw their endorsements, that would still satisfy the criteria in section b - you don't say (to pick an option out at random) that at the end of the official discussion period there must be standing endorsements from at least 10%, only that 10% must have endorsed at some point or other.
This response has been erased.
How has the "midnight to midnight" provision been ignored? If I properly understand the implementation, the time between the vote opening and the first midnight is not counted towards the ten days.
This response has been erased.
Remmers, do you wish me to incorporate this wording in my extant proposal, which is due to begin voting as soon as I submit final wording, or would you rather have this proposal stand on its own and have the full two weeks of bickering before it comes up for vote?
Re #7: you do not agree with me, if what you said represents what you think. I can't imagine how you construed what I said to mean that I thought that.
Re #10: Since this proposal is of wider scope than yours, I think it should get the full two weeks of discussion.
This response has been erased.
Suggested modification:
I propose that Article V of the bylaws be amended to read as
follows:
ARTICLE 5: VOTING PROCEDURES
a. Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
designated for this purpose. The item is then used for
discussion of the motion. All Grex users may participate in
the discussion. No action on the motion is taken for two
days. At any time after the initial two day period, the
member making the motion may declare its wording final by
entering a statement to that effect in the discussion item,
and unambiguously including the finalized motion in the same
response.
b. In order for the motion to be voted on, at least 10% of the
membership must have entered and not withdrawn endorsement
of the proposal. Endorsement shall consist of a statement by
the member in the discussion item agreeing that the motion
should be voted on. A member may withdraw his or her
endorsement at any time within thirteen days after the
motion is finalized by so stating in the discussion item.
c. If within twenty one days from the date of the motion the
author does not declare the motion finalized, or if within
fourteen days from the date the motion is finalized the
necessary endorsements have not been obtained, the motion
is considered to have lapsed and is not eligible for voting.
The vote is begun as soon as feasible and is conducted
online over a period of ten days.
d. Simultaneous voting on two or more motions is permissible,
subject to limitations of the voting software. However,
two motions may not be voted on simultaneously if one
is contradictory to or implies a modification of effect
to the other. In such a case, the motion finalized first
shall take precedence in voting order.
e. A motion will be considered to have passed if more
votes were cast in favor than against, except as provided
for bylaw amendments.
f. For voting purposes, a day will run midnight to midnight.
In the event of continuous system downtime of 24 hours or
more, the voting period will be adjusted to compensate.
---------
Notes on the suggested modifications:
1) This wording eliminates the possibility of the finalized
wording being substantially changed from what was endorsed for vote
by requiring finalization before the endorsement period begins.
2) The possibility of antisocial manipulation of the process is
minimized through the limitation of endorsement withdrawal to
earlier than one day before the the voting period can begin.
3) The two day initial period of inactivity is suggested in
order to at least give some opportunity for response before the
motion is finalized, but given the structure of the proposed
process, it doesn't really matter that much. Either the motion
will be endorsed or it won't.
I don't think two days is sufficient time for discussion before finalizing the text. Often the two-week discussion points up difficulties that need to be addressed in the final language. The statement that "No action on the motion is taken for two days" is ambiguous: is discussion an "action"?
The two days is merely the EARLIEST the motion may be declared finalized. The author always has the option to accept or decline any modifications, and this approach places the endorsement step AFTER the finalization anyway, so does it really matter? People will continue to discuss it anyway, and if the author finalizes it before much discussion takes place, then they run the risk that no one will endorse it. The "no action" statement is lifted directly from the by-law as it is now. It appears to refer to official action, and no other interpretation can reasonably be inferred, IMO.
Eric, I think your version adds more beaurocracy than is necessary. I think we ought to be as informal as possible in counting endorsements. I'd rather leave it up to the voteadm to decide which endorsements count and which don't. But, you can try to convince me that the changes are needed. I have one suggestion or remmers's motion: the endorsement provision says "10% of the membership", and I think it should say "10% of the voting membership", or something like that, since not all members can vote.
Thanks; I should have re-read the bylaws before commenting.
I wonder if it might be more useful to start the endorsement clock when
the text is finalised? Changing the text, in any way, would void all
previous endorsements,
So instead of
No action on the motion is taken for two days. At any
time after the initial two day period, the member making
the motion may declare its wording final
We would have
No action on the motion is taken until the language is
declared final. At any time, the member making the motion
may declare its wording final
and instead of
or if within fourteen days from the date the motion is
finalized the necessary endorsements have not been obtained,
we would have
or if within fourteen days from the date the motion is
most recently declared final the necessary endorsements
have not been obtained,
I'll leave it up to John to accept of decline any suggested changes. Mark, the main reason I explicitly allowed one less day to withdraw endorsements is because I can easily picture some chain-yanker repeatedly endorsing and withdrawing just as voteadm is about to start the voting. I wanted to give the voteadm time to put together the vote without being manipulated by antisocial behavior. Also, as Joe said, endorsements can really only be legitimate once the wording is finalized. I don't really understand your comment about determining which endorsements count and which don't. I don't know how to try to convince you of the necessity of the structure I suggested if I can't tell what part of it you're reacting to. Could you be more specific about exactly what you're calling too bureaucratic?
Well, I think it likely that people will read the initial version of a motion, and may at that time endorse it. Then maybe some technical changes are made, but the motion is substantially about the same issue. In that case, I think the voteadm ought to count thos endorsements. Maybe what I'm saying is that an endorsement should simply be a statement that "this issue should be voted on", not "I approve of the exact wording of this motion". If that's what it means, I think the change will accomplish the goal of keeping spurious motions from coming to a vote. I don't want to get into a situation where the poster has a legitimate issue, but makes several small changes to the motion over the course of a couple of weeks, and everyone who wants it to be voted on has to keep endorsing it over and over. Nor do I want to see us have a situation where someone is disinclined to make small changes to a motion just because that would force everyone to do their endorsements over again. I understand you're worried that someone might enter a motion, garner some endorsements, and then change the motion to something entirely different, just as a way of gaming the system. My answer to that is that the voteadm should have the power, in that situation, to declare that since the motion changed radically, earlier endorsements are discounted. I also don't want to require that people wait through a lengthy discussion of a motion until the final wording is declared before they may endorse it. I think it's reasonable not to want to sit through that, but still to have an opinion on whether the issue should be voted on.
I have a twenty USD note.
Me too!
My initial proposal was oriented more toward giving the voteadm discretion, but John's proposal was oriented more toward incorporating flexibility into the structure independent of the voteadm, so my suggestions take that approach into account. I don't think it is a substantial burden for participants in a discussion of a policy proposal to wait until wording is finalized before formally endorsing the proposal. I think if people are involved and interested enough to take part in the discussion, they'll be inclined to take the time to endorse a specific proposal, and the protection against the now-proven willingness of some to manipulate the sytem is worth the extra limitation in policy structure. I think it is better to have those protections built into the structure than to require the voteadm to take the heat for potentially controversial interpretations of what is and what isn't a sufficiently substantial change as to invalidate previous endorsements. That's a minefield I wouldn't want to face were I the voteadm. Also, endorsements of an earlier version which are withdrawn after a change in wording are a potentially useful tool for an author wishing to be gauge relevancy in addressing a policy shortcoming.
I think we should re-propose towards a sexual orientation.
I support John's proposal and prefer it to Eric's modification.
the modifications sound useful. i think that there should be either a timezone specified (midnight-midnight), or a statement that it will be determined by the grex clock, but that could in theory be tampered with, so specifying a timezone would be useful just for the case of making people like jp2 happy ;-)
This is due for a vote.
Right. Before moving it to a vote, I'd like to see some discussion of a couple of points. Specifics later, when I've got a bit more time.
Right.
Guess I let this proposal slide a bit, but I haven't abandoned it.
Sorry for the delay.
The midnight-to-midnight requirement is now enforced by the voting
software, ending any previous sloppiness. So I think it can stay.
The original bylaw was written when Grex was strictly a local
dialup system with no internet connection. In these days of
global connectivity, it would probably be good to state the
timezone, to remove ambiguity about what "midnight" means.
After reading Eric's concerns about the endorsement mechanism, I
agree with him that it could use some sharpening up. However, I
think the goal can be accomplished by a simpler mechanism than
he proposes. How about wording section c as follows:
When at least two weeks have passed, the author may post
a final wording of the motion. Following posting of the
final wording, members shall have forty-eight hours to
add an endorsement or withdraw a previous endorsement.
At the end of this period, if the motion has the necessary
number of endorsements, it may be voted on. The vote is
begun as soon as feasible and is conducted online over a
period of ten days. If within thirty days from the date
of the motion the author does not request a vote or the
necessary number of endorsements have not been obtained,
the motion is considered to have lapsed and is not
eligible for voting.
In addition, since membership levels fluctuate, section b
should probably specify a point in time at which the 10% is
calculated. I'd suggest that it be the date on which the
proposal is first posted.
Can a lapsed proposal be re-submitted? Immediately, or should there be a waiting period. Asking the treasurer to make a response giving the number of endoresements required seems reasonable to me. The day of the proposal sems a reasonable date to use for the determination.
Guess I'm not inclined to specify a waiting period. I can envision scenarios where immediate resubmission might be reasonable. E.g. it gets a lot of endorsements but the original proposer backs out. Think I'll start a vote on this tonight unless some new point gets raised that calls for more discussion.
John, did you make a distinction between "members" and "voting members" in your proposal?
Thanks for the reminder on that. I need to fine tune a couple of other points as well. I'll post a final wording here before starting the vote.
Okay, here's my proposed final wording. What do you think? My intent
is to give today and tomorrow for any comments, then start the vote
at midnight on Saturday the 13th. (That's when the current vote ends
if I recall correctly.)
MOTION: It is proposed that Cyberspace Communications Bylaw Article 5
be replaced by the following:
ARTICLE 5: VOTING PROCEDURES
a. Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
designated for this purpose. The item is then used for
discussion of the motion. All Grex users may participate in
the discussion. No action on the motion is taken for two
weeks.
b. In order for the motion to be voted on, at least 10% of the
eligible voting membership must endorse bringing the proposal
to a vote. Endorsement shall consist of a statement by the
member in the discussion item agreeing that the motion should
be voted on. A member may withdraw his or her endorsement at
any time prior to the start of voting by so stating in the
discussion item.
c. When at least two weeks have passed, the author may post
a final wording of the motion. Following posting of the
final wording, members shall have forty-eight hours to
add an endorsement or withdraw a previous endorsement.
At the end of this period, if the motion has the necessary
number of endorsements, it may be voted on. The vote is
begun as soon as feasible and is conducted online over a
period of ten days. If within thirty days from the date
that the item was posted the author does not request a vote
or the necessary number of endorsements have not been
obtained, the motion is considered to have lapsed and is
not eligible for voting.
d. Simultaneous voting on two or more motions is permissible,
subject to limitations of the voting software. However,
two motions may not be voted on simultaneously if one
is contradictory to or implies a modification of effect
to the other. In such a case, the motion posted first shall
take precedence in voting order.
e. A motion will be considered to have passed if more
votes were cast in favor than against, except as provided
for bylaw amendments.
f. For voting purposes, a day will run midnight to midnight, local
Grex time. In the event of continuous system downtime of 24 hours
or more, the voting period will be adjusted to compensate.
(Sorry about the slightly sloppy formatting of the above.)
The changes from the current Article 5 are:
o Required percentage of endorsement from eligible voting members
to bring a motion to a vote. (Currently no seconding or other
level of support is needed.)
o Motion expires if vote does not begin within 30 days.
o Requirement that conflicting motions may not be voted on
simultaneously.
Well done. I would only suggest that the 48 hour period of review after final wording be extended to four days, just because I think a lot of people easily manage to miss a couple of days and that far fewer would be gone for four days without being out of town and away from a computer altogether.
The wording looks fine to me. If this comes to a vote, at this point, I would recommend a NO vote on it.
May I ask why you would recommend against ti, albaugh?
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss