Suggested motion (From a non-member)

Mar 10 16:02 UTC 1997

Suggested motion: To limit votes.
I'm not a member, but I'm presenting this pursuant to some discussion i've
heard, principally from Jenna and Rane. I offer the language; the first member
who supports it should say so and offer it formally. Whether or not it gets
voted on eventually would fall on that member.
  
If this motion were to pass, language of the appropriate Grx regulations would
be modified so that:
(a) During an active vote on an issue, it is not permissible to begin a vote
on or officially move to vote on a related motion. It is permissible to
discuss alternative language, or alternative motions, but not in an official
capacity.
(b) If the motion succeeds, it shall have a 90-day minimum implementation
period, during which it is likewise impermissible to begin a vote on or
officially move to vote on a related motion.
(c) If the motion fails, there shall be no required waiting period before
alternatives may be suggested, but there shall be a one year waiting period
before the substantively identical motion may be voted on again.
(d) If, during the pre-vote discussion period of a motion, a second, similar
motion is presented, then voting on all related motions will begin at the same
time and end at the same time, beginning at the earliest at the end of the
waiting period *for the FIRST motion*.
  
This is the end of the motion proper. Some explanation:
The last clause in (c) is to prevent minor modifications in language.
Unfortunately, it is as phrased subjective, but I think we can in geenral
agree on when it applies and when it doesn't.
  
The last clause in (d) is to prevent people from (a) finding a loophole in
this motion and (b) delaying the vote through trivial motions. It seems
appropriate, assuming the competing motions are somehow modifications of the
original motion: it says, in effect, that if member Joe suggests a motion,
then abandons it, member Sally can take it up with the initial waiting period;
if Joe decides *not* to abandon it, both Joe and Sally can have their
versions.
Erf! Thought of a loophole! Amendment to the motion:
  
(e) If two related motions both succeed, or more than two, than the strongest
will be the one to take effect. If it is not clear which is stronger, then
clauses from both shall go into effect, as much as they are non-contradictory;
in the case of contradictions, the stronger will win.

response 2 of 55:

Mar 10 16:49 UTC 1997

I disagree with b,c,e so would vote against this, although I agree with much
of the concept. 

b-  a 90 day implementation period is too long...maybe a two week or so
cooling off period wouldbe a good off idea..but no member should be prevented
from making motions for an "implementation period"  That sort of language
couldbe used to force grex to live with some really bad proposal that got
passed as a fluke because of low turnout or ignorance.

c- a one year waitingperiod before same motion can be re-proposed?  I see
thatas a really bad idea, and against the nature of grex.  Grexers need to
be able to know that change is always possible.  I wouldnt want to see grex's
wheels bogged down by onorous waitingperiods.  Change one year to one month
max.

e- strike this altogether...I used to think otherwise, but I now think
thatmotions need tobe considered one at a time, if they are addressing the
same issue that is.  Otherwise neither motion may pass.


***revised proposal***

If an issue has been brought before themembership for a vote, it may not
be re-considered or reproposed again in any form, for thirty days.  A
member may ask theboard to vote to grant a waiver to this rule if the
circumstances are warranted.

Thats all thats needed.
(richard is waiting for janc and babozita toall him a cucumber *sigh*)

response 4 of 55:

Mar 10 18:41 UTC 1997

Rane> A motion to formally adopt RRO would be acceptable too.
I'm just sick of all this sadonecroequiphilia...
  
Scott> Then the membership should think VERY carefully before casting a yes
vote. Personal responsibility. What a concept. But you wouldn't know about
that, would you, Scott? =}

Richard> I like the waiver idea, it remedies Scott's complaint. The point is
to prevent trivial or politically motivated amendments, not actual problems.

#0 strikes me as common sense etiquette. Robert obviously had problems with
people understanding common sense etiquette, and so had to codify it. Mary
and CMcGee, among others, seem to have trouble with common sense etiquette,
too. (I know, somebody -- probably Mary -- is going to tell me that
mud-slinging isn't etiquette either =P ... without realizing that by saying
that, they're mud-slinging too (or realizing and not caring)). 

I honestly think we need to completely overhaul the way that Grex processes
motions. Motions are never seconded, for instance, at least not to my
knowledge. (necessarily seconded, that is) The purpose of a second is to
indicate that there's somebody other than the suggester who actually wants
the change, preventing superfluous votes.

Myself, I'd just like to see Grex adopt RRO, but I realize that's a bit too
anal for a lot of people here.

response 6 of 55:

Mar 10 20:08 UTC 1997

I was thinking more along the lines of proposing a bylaw ammendment requiring
something like five people to propose soemthing to get on the ballot, rather
than hte current requirement of just one person.

response 8 of 55:

Mar 10 20:45 UTC 1997

        Why in the world is it "anal" (is this a fixation folks have?)
        to operate under a system with flexibility and rigidity in 
        proportion..?

        If "order" of any sort is so goddamned "anal", then by all means:
        drop newuser, open the confs, forget accounts, donations and all
        the assorting trappings of an "organization", geezus h key-rist.

        And.. yeah, go for that 501c3 I mentioned elsewhere.. Your main
        saving grace is being absolutely unaffiliated with the IRS, but
        some folks can't see the arbornet lesson in action. *sigh*

response 10 of 55:

Mar 10 23:20 UTC 1997

equu, i think... *ponders*
love of beating dead horses

response 12 of 55:

Mar 10 23:28 UTC 1997

Yep, paraphrased from the film "What's Up, Tiger Lily?"

response 14 of 55:

Mar 11 00:49 UTC 1997

RRO makes sense in a programming-language way... a very specific set of 
tools to accomplish something with as little ambiguity and confusion as 
possible.  

However, it can get tiring trying to make something work in a 
programming langauge, and I suspect a lot of the resistance to RRO is 
from computer people (myself included) who would rather have their 
pinkies cut off than have to learn Yet Another Programming Language.

response 16 of 55:

Mar 11 04:20 UTC 1997

With a competent chair, one learns by doing. Since most of what one does
is done over and over - motions, amendments, voting - the core procedure
is learned quickly, and greatly expedites discussion and decision. But
in the tool bag are what is needed for just about any contingency - and the
responsibility of the chair is to offer the right tool and explain its use,
when needed. I'd have to give a lot of thought, though, on adapting RRO
to this format, just as cmcgee would have to for consensus building in this
format. I have little experience in the consensus format, but a great deal
in the RRO format - but from what cmcgee says, I conclude they both require
facilitators, though playing somewhat different roles. 

response 18 of 55:

Mar 11 18:18 UTC 1997

   Please people, listen to mary in #7.  We don't need more government
here because of one contentious issue.  We probably don't need more
rules even if we had 27 such issues.

   Adding more rules isn't going to help us any.

response 20 of 55:

Mar 12 05:12 UTC 1997

Amen!

response 22 of 55:

Mar 12 15:36 UTC 1997

I recant the motion.
  
I don't think taking motions to votes is consensus building.
There's a difference between a straw vote and an actual vote,
and we've been doing actual votes.
  
As I've already said, I detest the politics of certain people here.

Beyond that, the best thing for me and everyone else involved
is for me to leave co-op again. When I was gone, I should
have stayed gone. I made a mistake in returning.
  
I've apologized elsewhere. The abhorrent behavior of others in no
way justifies abhorrent behavior on my own part.

response 24 of 55:

Mar 13 14:09 UTC 1997

All right, I'm back in co-op. Sigh. I'll explain why in another item.