From the current Grex By-laws:
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. At the end of two weeks, the author may then submit a
final version for a vote by the membership. The vote is
conducted on-line over a period of ten days.
b. A motion will be considered to have passed if more
votes were cast in favor than against, except as provided
for bylaw amendments.
c. 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.
------
Proposal:
Let Article 5 of the Grex by-laws be amended by the addition
of section (d) with subsections (1) and (2) as follows:
d. In the event that more than one member motion is made within
the same calendar day, the voteadm may, at his or her
discretion, delay the beginning of the voting period for any
of the concurrent motions, subject to the following
limitations:
1. The order in which the motions were posted to the proper
Grex conference shall be correctly mirrored by the order
in which the motions are opened for voting, subject to
timely availability of the final wording for each motion.
Exception shall be made for simultaneous voting periods.
2. No more than one day shall elapse between the openings of
voting on successive motions, subject to reasonable delays
due to technical or implementation issues.
14 responses total.
If this amendment passes, Article 5 will 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. At the end of two weeks, the author may then submit a
final version for a vote by the membership. The vote is
conducted on-line over a period of ten days.
b. A motion will be considered to have passed if more
votes were cast in favor than against, except as provided
for bylaw amendments.
c. 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.
d. In the event that more than one member motion is made within
the same calendar day, the voteadm may, at his or her
discretion, delay the beginning of the voting period for any
of the concurrent motions, subject to the following
limitations:
1. The order in which the motions were posted to the proper
Grex conference shall be correctly mirrored by the order
in which the motions are opened for voting, subject to
timely availability of the final wording for each motion.
Exception shall be made for simultaneous voting periods.
2. No more than one day shall elapse between the openings of
voting on successive motions, subject to reasonable delays
due to technical or implementation issues.
A few points: This amendment addresses a specific scenario not allowed for within the current by-law structure. It does so NOT BY MANDATING, but by giving the voteadm DISCRETION to deal with concurrent, possibly conflicting proposals in a way which removes any reasonable doubt from the manner in they should be considered and implemented, thus rendering entirely moot the issue of whether successive proposals are made within minutes or within years of each other, and allowing later proposals to cleanly supercede earlier ones without raising procedural problems.
The clause "subject to timely availability of the final wording for each motion" gives me pause in that it opens the door to gamesmanship: the first proposer could delay offering the final wording until after the voting on the second proposoal has begun, to fulfill the prophesy, "The first shall be last." However, that is easily resolved: the second (and subsequent) proposers need merely wait for the final wording of the first proposal.
That's pretty much why it's a non-issue. Even now, someone can delay as long as they want the beginning of voting on their own proposal merely by failing to finalize the wording, and if two people want to delay indefinitely, then their proposals will never come up for vote. The voteadm is not obligated to do anything with a motion until the final wording is available, which is at the first time after the mandated discussion period is over that the proposer declares the wording to be finalized. (Which means that the voteadm is free to, and possibly obligated to ignore any announced changes to the wording of a proposal after that point.)
Thank you for taking the time to write this up, other.
Today is two weeks since the posting of this proposal. I'm surprised by the lack of discussion, but I suppose that just means it really isn't very controversial...
So is #0 your final answer?
The original phrasing is final.
I was planning to make a proposal to amendment Article 5, incorporating the "endorsement" idea that I made in another item, addressing the issue of simultaneous votes, and cleaning up one or two other things. I can post it today or tomorrow. Eric, do you want to press ahead with yours now, or wait and see what I come up with?
I'll wait. It can't hurt to at least see what you've got to offer, and it could save us all some time and energy.
You GreXists are neurotic.
(Will post my proposal tomorrow morning...)
In light of remmers' proposal (item:122) I withdraw this one.
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: