|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 203 of 424:
| 
Jan 21 16:14 UTC 2004 |
I would like to ask the Board to clarify the precedent of member
proposals before either this proposal, or my proposal as outlined in
item:76, are voted on. This proposal and my proposal will be voted on
at the same time, and will conflict with one another. I think it is
necessary to make it clear which will override the other before either
or both are presented to the membership for a decision.
I hope jp2 will agree with me on my request, and agree to have his
proposal, along with mine, postponed until that determination is made.
I hope all participating parties will see this as a reasonable
request. My intent is to keep from having to have another round of
user proposals, which is what will happen, I think, if two proposals
are passed at the same time which directly contradict one another.
|
jp2
|
|
response 204 of 424:
|
Jan 21 16:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 205 of 424:
|
Jan 21 16:52 UTC 2004 |
There is no established precedent of which I am aware on Grex for
two or more conflicting proposals with simultaneous or overlapping
voting periods, so here is the most basic logical approach I can
think of:
1) Assuming there is no specific timeline for implementation of the
proposal included within it (or any of them) they should be
implemented in chronological order of the determination of the
outcomes of voting. However, in the interests of resource
conservation, implementation should be delayed until the outcome of
the final resolution is determined. In other words, if three
potentially conflicting resolutions are in process simultaneously,
then implementation should be done in order but after all three are
determined. This way, the end result is the same as it would
otherwise be, but the minimum of doing and undoing is undertaken.
2) If the proposals incorporate implementation timelines, then those
timelines should be observed as closely as is reasonably possible
considering that such implementation is dependent on the efforts of
volunteers whose priorities do not necessarily allow Grex member
resolutions to take absolute precedence.
3) If some proposals include timelines and some do not, then the
approach should be 2) where applicable and 1) where applicable,
though in practical terms it should be expected that the overall end
result is likely to resemble 1) a lot more than 2).
|
jep
|
|
response 206 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:19 UTC 2004 |
Eric, as jp2 mentioned, and the numbering of the items shows anyway, my
proposal was entered after his. Would mine therefore modify his and
take precedence in that way? Can his exclude mine from passing? Can a
user proposal ban further user proposals on a subject? Or will they be
concurrent -- the vote start and end at the same time for both?
It has been suggested that mine is more limited and would take
precedence on that basis. Do you agree? Does the Board and the
Staff? (This is what led to my request.)
Both his proposal and mine have an implied timeline of "take effect
immediately upon passing". My proposal is to *not* take an action.
There's no timeline for being inactive on something; you can not-do
something today, or next week, or in 2010.
I don't think it's clear on what happens if both his proposal and mine
pass. I think it's valid to ask that that be determined before the
proposals are voted on.
|
jep
|
|
response 207 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:26 UTC 2004 |
re resp:204: Jamie, it would be in the best interests of Grex that
there be no conflicting proposals. Do you agree?
It would be best if you and I can agree to merge our proposals so as to
avoid conflicting simultaneous votes. The clearest way to do that, in
my opinion, is to split the issue of valerie's items from the issue of
the items I asked her to delete. Then there can be two unambiguous
votes with direct and clear consequences. We'd just have to agree how
the one on my items would be worded. It seems to me possible we can do
that.
What say you?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 208 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:29 UTC 2004 |
You are right that it is not clear what happens if both proposals pass. I
suggest that people consider that when casting their votes, and vote
accordingly.
I am aware of a Constitutional precedent for Section 4, but I still think
it inappropriate for grex. On that basis alone, I'm inclined to vote
against this proposal.
|
jp2
|
|
response 209 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 210 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 211 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:40 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 212 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:47 UTC 2004 |
Each proposal must be weighed on its own merits and implemented
within the context of the state of reality at the time it is passed.
If the wording of one proposal is mooted by the wording of another,
then so be it. The later proposal has the advantage of being
modifiable after the earlier is set in stone and being voted upon.
The proposals do not carry any weight however, until they are
successfully passed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 213 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:50 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 214 of 424:
|
Jan 21 18:14 UTC 2004 |
Jamie, I am not going to drop my proposal.
Your point #4 isn't relevant to my proposal, you know.
I've offered a clear way to avoid any ambiguity, any conflict between
the two proposals, and to put the issues to the users in the most
straightforward way. I don't see any advantage to anyone in making it
confusing. I don't see any reason why we can't disagree but be
collegial. I'm not willing to give up my proposal just to get along,
though.
|
jp2
|
|
response 215 of 424:
|
Jan 21 18:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 216 of 424:
|
Jan 21 18:25 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 217 of 424:
|
Jan 21 18:51 UTC 2004 |
It is possible for members to defeat this proposal, and have none of its
suggestions go into effect. Just vote no.
|
aruba
|
|
response 218 of 424:
|
Jan 21 19:14 UTC 2004 |
I agree.
|
jp2
|
|
response 219 of 424:
|
Jan 21 19:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 220 of 424:
|
Jan 21 19:57 UTC 2004 |
There are several things embodied in this proposal. Because it is
presented as "all, or nothing", it leaves us with no way to accept the
good without also accepting the bad. In my opinion, the good it does is
not worth the bad it does.
|
jp2
|
|
response 221 of 424:
|
Jan 21 20:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 222 of 424:
|
Jan 21 21:17 UTC 2004 |
Unless you keep it very short and focused on just
the restoration of the deleted items I suspect this
vote won't get much support at all.
|
gull
|
|
response 223 of 424:
|
Jan 21 21:21 UTC 2004 |
I'm also not happy with section 4. I really don't like the idea of
voting to limit what I have the right to vote about later.
|
jp2
|
|
response 224 of 424:
|
Jan 21 21:21 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 225 of 424:
|
Jan 21 21:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 226 of 424:
|
Jan 21 22:12 UTC 2004 |
Just keep section three.
|
tod
|
|
response 227 of 424:
|
Jan 21 22:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|