|
Grex > Coop13 > #114: Proposal: delay before re-voting on a topic already submitted to vote | |
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
Proposal: delay before re-voting on a topic already submitted to vote
| 
Feb 9 19:55 UTC 2004 |
This item is a marker to start the calendar ticking on a proposal to
require a delay of several months between member re-votes on the same issue.
I'm hoping that someone else will draft the language, since I'm kind of
busy right now.
|
| 79 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 1 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:06 UTC 2004 |
I propose that no member may bring to a vote any proposal that accomplishes
substantially the same objective as a previous proposal until at least 6
months after the end of voting on the previous proposal.
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:19 UTC 2004 |
I would like to suggest that discretion be given the voteadm, subject
to review by the board in the event of complaint, to determine whether
or not to bring to a vote any proposal the voteadm considers to have
been made either with spurious intent or without reasonable expectation
of effecting change that would be supported by the majority of likely
voters on the issue.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 3 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:22 UTC 2004 |
While I understand the sentiment behind this, I'm not wild about it, I must
say. How about "no more frequently than once per quarter", which is
essentially 3 months.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 4 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:25 UTC 2004 |
Hrm, how about some guidelines for "reasonable expectation of effecting change
that would........"
Replace that with a "supermajority" rule of thumb. Like "any proposal that
won or lost with a margin of more than 60%".
|
other
|
|
response 5 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:27 UTC 2004 |
I think it would be more in keeping with Grex tradition and style to
give discretion with oversight rather than fix a hard limit in stone.
Besides, if we go with discretion, we don't have to define precisely
what is subject to the delay and what isn't. That avoids one path to
madness...
|
jp2
|
|
response 6 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 7 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:42 UTC 2004 |
No. What failed was communication. The discretionary system worked
just like it is supposed to.
|
aruba
|
|
response 8 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:42 UTC 2004 |
I like other's idea of giving discretion to the voteadm. THis needs to be
a bylaw amendment, since voting procedures are covered in the bylaws.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 9 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:55 UTC 2004 |
This proposal is an absurd attempt to limit free speech, and I hope someone
does something to stop it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 10 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 11 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 12 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:56 UTC 2004 |
Here's my suggestion for wording the proposal. I actually thought about
entering this over the weekend, but decided to give Jamie a chance not to do
what he did. Oh well.
Proposal: the following paragraph should be added to Article 5 of the
CYberspace Communications bylaws:
d. If, in the opinion of the vote administrator, a proposed motion is
substantially the same as a motion the membership has already voted on
within the preceeding 6 months, the vote administrator may decline to
bring the motion to a vote. The proposer of the item may appeal the vote
administrator's decision to the Board of Directors. The Board's decision
is final.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 13 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:59 UTC 2004 |
Not necessarily so! If it is the will of Landrew, I mean the grex founders,
and current baff, that there be no hard & fast policies, that discretion rules
the day (carried out by overworked and underpaid grex volunteers), AND
that the "policy" of "no policies" is clearly communicated to grexers,
then I have no problems with running this "computer club" that way.
"Buyer beware". I just hope that running with no policies is acceptable for
a state non-profit corporation or whatever...
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 14 of 79:
|
Feb 9 21:02 UTC 2004 |
Don't you think it'll be more of a pain in the ass to go through a bigfat
appeals process than to just vote the repeats down?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 15 of 79:
|
Feb 9 21:08 UTC 2004 |
Or how about a different approach? Do not limit the *frequency* at which a
proposal may appear - just limit who may propose it. That would mean that
jp2 could not repeat his proposal, but if he could get another member to do
so, then so be it.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 16 of 79:
|
Feb 9 21:25 UTC 2004 |
No, I don't think that works at all. I'd much rather have the issue be the
standard, not the person.
|
other
|
|
response 17 of 79:
|
Feb 9 21:43 UTC 2004 |
There's a certain appeal to that idea. Keeping in mind that motions
must be made by members in order to be voted upon, why not simply
restrict the same member from posting the same proposal, or one with
substantially identical purpose and effect, more than one consecutive
time within the same 6-month period?
|
other
|
|
response 18 of 79:
|
Feb 9 21:44 UTC 2004 |
Colleen slipped in.
|
jep
|
|
response 19 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:16 UTC 2004 |
Is "voteadm" an official position, appointed by the Board? Are there
term limits, same as the treasurer and Board members and such? It
seems to me that remmers has always been the voteadm, and that he has
the position because he wrote the voting software. Is "voteadm" a
staff position, an administrative one, or what?
I certainly don't mean to imply anything against John Remmers, but I
think the questions are relevant to the proposal.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 20 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:25 UTC 2004 |
Something else that's relevent to the proposal is the conspiracy underway to
pass it.
I recently received a copy of a transcript of a conversation held between its
proposer and Society of Members of Old GreX member John Remmers:
krj: Hopefully I am creating the conditions so that my still-vague
proposal gets voted on in the same time period as Jamie 2.0
This indicates a concerted effort to trick users into passing his proposal,
not because it's good and wholesome (fibrous and thus easier to pass), but
because, he thinks, GreXists don't like jp2. remmers (user remmers) not only
agreed with this strategy, but, look at this:
remmers: The main effect is likely to be passage of your proposal. ;)
gave a wink (and, assuredly, a nod) to suggest that he would do almost
anything to see the proposal pass.
Why does the membership of New GreX stand for this nonsense?
|
jep
|
|
response 21 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:37 UTC 2004 |
Dang, I lost another lengthy posting; eaten by Backtalk.
Briefly, it seems to me the least intrusive thing to do would be to
allow a super-majority of the Board (5, 6 or 7 of 7) to dismiss a user
proposal, if they think it was intended as harrassment.
|
other
|
|
response 22 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:53 UTC 2004 |
#21 sounds reasonable and simple...
|
krj
|
|
response 23 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:55 UTC 2004 |
1) What's harrassment? Is Jamie's proposal 2.0 harrassment, or just an
unwillingness to concede defeat?
2) Board meetings, on a monthly cycle, don't necessary align with our
online voting cycle.
|
other
|
|
response 24 of 79:
|
Feb 9 22:58 UTC 2004 |
the board could be permitted to agree online or by email and thereby
dispense with any vote that meets some minimum requirement of
similarity with a prior proposal which failed by a substantial margin.
Still some definition required, but reasonable wiggle room to not be
pinned to specific lines in the sand.
|