|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 286 of 424:
|
Jan 27 18:03 UTC 2004 |
I was busily setting up the vote program this morning and getting
ready to start the voting, since Jamie had given me the go-ahead.
Then I decided to catch up on Coop. Big mistake. :)
According to the rules, once the discussion period on a proposal
is over, the proposer has control over when the vote starts.
From Jamie's response #282 it sounds like he's reconsidering the
timing, so I'll wait until I get clarification from him on that
before starting the voting on his proposal.
However, once the vote starts, there's no turning back....
|
jp2
|
|
response 287 of 424:
|
Jan 27 18:08 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 288 of 424:
|
Jan 27 18:51 UTC 2004 |
:-0
|
albaugh
|
|
response 289 of 424:
|
Jan 27 23:07 UTC 2004 |
"I'm coming up, so you better get this voting started."
|
jep
|
|
response 290 of 424:
|
Jan 28 03:23 UTC 2004 |
I apologize for the confusion, but there was really no consensus a
week ago on how this situation ought to be resolved. It appears there
is now. That being the case, I have no objection to the voting on
both items commencing.
|
remmers
|
|
response 291 of 424:
|
Jan 28 11:56 UTC 2004 |
Okay, I'll start the vote tonight.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 292 of 424:
|
Jan 28 13:54 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, remmers!
|
naftee
|
|
response 293 of 424:
|
Jan 28 22:33 UTC 2004 |
THANKS jremmers!
|
remmers
|
|
response 294 of 424:
|
Jan 29 02:19 UTC 2004 |
The polls are now open. Type "vote" at a Unix shell prompt,
"!vote" just about anywhere else. You get to choose which of
the two propositions to vote on. When done with your first
choice, you get to choose again.
You can vote more than once; your last vote overwrites any
previous one. Therefore, it is appropriate to continue discussing
the proposal here during the voting period.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 295 of 424:
|
Jan 29 02:23 UTC 2004 |
Thank you, remmers. My votes have been cast. :)
|
polytarp
|
|
response 296 of 424:
|
Jan 29 02:41 UTC 2004 |
I don't like the way proposal B is phrased. It makes it seems as if it was
a typical staff action to delete items on request.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 297 of 424:
|
Jan 29 19:43 UTC 2004 |
Even though I'm not excited about this whole affair, I guess I recommend a
"Yes" vote on this proposal. That would ostensibly restore things to where
they were before the "unauthorized" item deletions took place. I'm sorry that
staff will have to spend time on this should it pass, but that is not the
fault of the membership - the fault lies elsewhere.
|