|
Grex > Coop9 > #62: Explanatory text in the vote program? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
valerie
|
|
Explanatory text in the vote program?
| 
Mar 1 06:19 UTC 1997 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 35 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 1 of 35:
|
Mar 1 07:22 UTC 1997 |
I think biased statements are a bad idea - who would get to write them?
However, defining your terms is always a good idea, and such definitions
should be included in the text of the motion. I would suggest that such
clarifications be proposed in the item discussing the motion, but that the
decision of whether to include them or not be left up to the proposer.
I think anything else would require changing the bylaws to say that a member
could propose a motion "only if everyone thinks it's clear". That would be
silly.
|
remmers
|
|
response 2 of 35:
|
Mar 1 14:02 UTC 1997 |
I basically agree with Mark. Proposals always have an associated
discussion item, completely uncensored and unfiltered, where
people express viewpoints pro and con and where meanings are
clarified, terms are defined, etc. Why is anything more needed?
Why should people be encouraged to vote without informing
themselves by reading the discussion?
|
mary
|
|
response 3 of 35:
|
Mar 1 14:05 UTC 1997 |
Agree with Mark and John.
|
mary
|
|
response 4 of 35:
|
Mar 1 14:19 UTC 1997 |
Too, I think it would be highly inappropriate to change
a ballot once voting has already begun.
|
richard
|
|
response 5 of 35:
|
Mar 1 17:51 UTC 1997 |
maybe valerie should propose a member vote on this...but then the debate would
be whether to have explanatory text for the vote on whether to have
explanatory text. let the board decide.
put it on the agenda at the next meeting.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 6 of 35:
|
Mar 1 18:52 UTC 1997 |
So far so good. Definitions are a good idea in any rule, ordinance, law, or
other mandate. It is not elegant to include detailed definitions, but it is
wise to do so for the benefit of the people affected. The more definitions,
the better.
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 35:
|
Mar 1 19:38 UTC 1997 |
If the proposer feels the need for clarifying language, let him
or her put it in the motion. For proposals, I would oppose
having anything relating to the substance of the motion, other
than the motion itself, appear on the ballot. In most cases, I
would think that the discussion item itself (which under the
bylaws, must exist for a period of two weeks preceding the vote)
would supply any needed definitions and clarifications.
I hope that there is no serious support for the concept of
Readers Digest Condensed Version pro/con statements on the
ballots as suggested by Valerie. That would be demeaning to
the people who have put time and energy into discussing a
possibly complex issue. We shouldn't be providing excuses for
people to cast votes without having informed themselves by
reading the relevant full discussion.
|
robh
|
|
response 8 of 35:
|
Mar 1 22:33 UTC 1997 |
I agree that we shouldn't post summarized arguments in the ballot,
though I would like to see a pointer to the Co-Op item(s) in
question. Which, indeed, there already is. I'm happy! >8)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 9 of 35:
|
Mar 2 02:26 UTC 1997 |
I can sleep easy tonight. Peace is our profession.
|
tsty
|
|
response 10 of 35:
|
Mar 2 10:19 UTC 1997 |
pro/con statements are saturated throughout coop.
vocabulary definitions could assist though, non-polarizing.
|
srw
|
|
response 11 of 35:
|
Mar 2 12:59 UTC 1997 |
I agree with Mark, john, Mary, and Robh.
|
remmers
|
|
response 12 of 35:
|
Mar 2 13:43 UTC 1997 |
Do folks think it would be helpful to put a stronger
recommendation on the ballot that people read the discussion
item before casting a vote?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 13 of 35:
|
Mar 2 18:37 UTC 1997 |
Yes
|
robh
|
|
response 14 of 35:
|
Mar 2 19:31 UTC 1997 |
Sounds good to me!
|
pfv
|
|
response 15 of 35:
|
Mar 2 20:57 UTC 1997 |
I should think you'd at least word it so that the "yes"
or the "no" mean something specific..
|
adbarr
|
|
response 16 of 35:
|
Mar 2 23:10 UTC 1997 |
Yes is positive, active, go for it, do it.
No is negative, negatron, nyet, Non!, bad, stop, don't. etc.
|
valerie
|
|
response 17 of 35:
|
Mar 3 14:56 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
ajax
|
|
response 18 of 35:
|
Mar 3 15:54 UTC 1997 |
People who don't feel adequately informed can (and should, I think)
choose to cast no vote, rather than to cast an uninformed vote. If anyone
wants to reduce the a big discussion item into a brief summary (biased
or not), they can do that, and enter it as another item in co-op or agora,
or e-mail it to members, or distribute it however they want. I don't think
additional info is needed in the vote program itself.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 35:
|
Mar 3 20:35 UTC 1997 |
I think it would be reasonable to have arguments in favor and arguments in
opposition statements accessible through the vote program. This is almost
universal in all organizations to which I belong that have votes of the
membership for adoption of proposals. Who comes to mind.... the Sierra
Club does. In fact, all the *membership* based organization to which I
belong - except Grex, do (only Grex currently expects members to read the
full discussion of proposals, rather than consider just pro and con
statements).
|
bjorn
|
|
response 20 of 35:
|
Mar 4 13:46 UTC 1997 |
Seems like time to rev up ye olde vote program on this motion . . .
|
valerie
|
|
response 21 of 35:
|
Mar 5 17:41 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 22 of 35:
|
Mar 5 20:51 UTC 1997 |
Cool. Guess I should vote, huh?
|
srw
|
|
response 23 of 35:
|
Mar 6 06:34 UTC 1997 |
I wish I could vote over the web via backtalk.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 24 of 35:
|
Mar 6 11:52 UTC 1997 |
That would be a nice addition - and useful to other groups, I bet.
|