|
Grex > Coop13 > #122: Proposal: Amendment to Bylaws Article 5 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
remmers
|
|
Proposal: Amendment to Bylaws Article 5
| 
Feb 13 19:38 UTC 2004 |
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. |
remmers
|
|
response 1 of 71:
|
Feb 13 19:39 UTC 2004 |
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...
|
jp2
|
|
response 2 of 71:
|
Feb 13 20:03 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 3 of 71:
|
Feb 13 20:10 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 4 of 71:
|
Feb 13 21:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 5 of 71:
|
Feb 13 22:23 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
davel
|
|
response 6 of 71:
|
Feb 13 22:37 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 7 of 71:
|
Feb 13 23:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 8 of 71:
|
Feb 14 00:00 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 9 of 71:
|
Feb 14 00:08 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 10 of 71:
|
Feb 14 01:48 UTC 2004 |
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?
|
davel
|
|
response 11 of 71:
|
Feb 14 02:43 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 12 of 71:
|
Feb 14 15:42 UTC 2004 |
Re #10: Since this proposal is of wider scope than yours, I think it
should get the full two weeks of discussion.
|
other
|
|
response 13 of 71:
|
Feb 14 19:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 14 of 71:
|
Feb 14 19:11 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 15 of 71:
|
Feb 15 04:48 UTC 2004 |
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"?
|
other
|
|
response 16 of 71:
|
Feb 15 05:09 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
aruba
|
|
response 17 of 71:
|
Feb 15 16:15 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 18 of 71:
|
Feb 15 16:22 UTC 2004 |
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,
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 71:
|
Feb 15 16:58 UTC 2004 |
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?
|
aruba
|
|
response 20 of 71:
|
Feb 15 18:37 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
rational
|
|
response 21 of 71:
|
Feb 15 18:43 UTC 2004 |
I have a twenty USD note.
|
naftee
|
|
response 22 of 71:
|
Feb 15 19:07 UTC 2004 |
Me too!
|
other
|
|
response 23 of 71:
|
Feb 15 19:37 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
naftee
|
|
response 24 of 71:
|
Feb 15 19:45 UTC 2004 |
I think we should re-propose towards a sexual orientation.
|