|
Grex > Oldcoop > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 261 of 424:
| 
Jan 23 19:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 262 of 424:
|
Jan 24 04:25 UTC 2004 |
I would also like to thank willcome and jp2 for their tireless efforts in
discussing the matter with the users of GreX.
|
ryan
|
|
response 263 of 424:
|
Jan 24 16:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 264 of 424:
|
Jan 24 17:27 UTC 2004 |
Re #261: You can avoid naming names and still be factually accurate.
|
remmers
|
|
response 265 of 424:
|
Jan 25 22:02 UTC 2004 |
To clarify: I think the wording in #259 is okay except that the
phrase "by staff members" is contrary to fact. Simplest fix would
be to leave it out. Once that's fixed, I'll start a vote whenever
Jamie says. Other things came up this weekend that slowed down work
on the new vote program, and I doubt I'll have a chance to work on
it again until next weekend, so in the interest of expediting
a decision it may be best to start the vote under the old program.
|
jp2
|
|
response 266 of 424:
|
Jan 26 01:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 267 of 424:
|
Jan 26 02:26 UTC 2004 |
(That only works if the bill is sure to pass, jp2. You know that. Except
in the case of "poison pill" riders, which are added to ensure the basic bill
does NOT pass.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 268 of 424:
|
Jan 26 10:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 269 of 424:
|
Jan 26 11:06 UTC 2004 |
When I start seeing some kickbacks for my efforts, I'll give more
serious consideration to imitating shady legislative practices. But
darn it, Jamie didn't offer me any bribes at all. You get what you
pay for. :)
Okay, I'll start the voting either later today or first thing
tomorrow.
|
jp2
|
|
response 270 of 424:
|
Jan 26 11:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 271 of 424:
|
Jan 26 13:17 UTC 2004 |
That ought to buy you some creamer for your Starbucks latte, James.
|
jp2
|
|
response 272 of 424:
|
Jan 26 14:10 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 273 of 424:
|
Jan 27 14:07 UTC 2004 |
I request, once again as I did in resp:203 on Wednesday, January 21,
that the Board resolve the questions that have been raised by myself
and others about what happens if both proposals pass, before the
proposals are placed before the voters. I think otherwise the voters
can not know what they are voting to decide, and that therefore the
outcome of the two votes will possibly be moot.
I don't know of a procedure for bringing this request into the decision
making process. I hope someone on the Board can take charge, though.
|
slynne
|
|
response 274 of 424:
|
Jan 27 15:06 UTC 2004 |
It is my understanding that the most recent proposal takes precedence.
Since jp2's proposal was made first, your proposal would be the most
recent.
So, if jp2' proposal passes and yours passes, only the baby diary items
will be restored. If jp2's proposal passes and yours doesnt, then the
baby diary items and the divorce items will be restored. If jp2's
proposal fails and yours passes, then the staff could decide to restore
the baby diary items but they would not be allowed to restore the
divorce items. If both proposals fail, the status quo prevails.
I am not sure we need a board action to clarify this officially.
|
other
|
|
response 275 of 424:
|
Jan 27 15:07 UTC 2004 |
Here's how it works:
Each proposal is voted upon as it is, as if it were the only one on the
table.
In case of direct conflict between successfully passed proposals, the
later one takes precedence (assumed to be a change of mind/heart on the
part of the membership -- it makes no difference if the time lapse
between conflicting proposals is minutes or years).
How much more simplification/clarification do you need?
|
other
|
|
response 276 of 424:
|
Jan 27 15:08 UTC 2004 |
slynne slipped in
|
jp2
|
|
response 277 of 424:
|
Jan 27 15:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 278 of 424:
|
Jan 27 15:16 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 279 of 424:
|
Jan 27 15:25 UTC 2004 |
"It would be best to avoid an unpleasant situation."
Too late. ;-)
|
other
|
|
response 280 of 424:
|
Jan 27 15:29 UTC 2004 |
There should be a time lag between the beginnings of the voting periods
for the respective proposals roughly equivalent to the lag between
their originations. I would be in favor of making that lag one day at
minimum, in order to make it easier on the voteadm, and to make it
easier for the membership to treat the two proposals individually.
|
jp2
|
|
response 281 of 424:
|
Jan 27 15:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 282 of 424:
|
Jan 27 15:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 283 of 424:
|
Jan 27 15:57 UTC 2004 |
Of course you would, since that would let your proposal override his.
|
naftee
|
|
response 284 of 424:
|
Jan 27 16:06 UTC 2004 |
heh
|
gelinas
|
|
response 285 of 424:
|
Jan 27 16:11 UTC 2004 |
According to the minutes of the most recent board meeting, the votes
are to be run concurrently.
The only conflict is if both initiatives pass, which would quite clearly
indicate that the membership wants the items restored but agrees that
the divorce items should not be restored.
The consensus appears to me to be that if both initiatives fail, no action
should be taken.
|