|
Grex > Oldcoop > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 311 of 357:
| 
Jan 26 16:09 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, I understand the problem. It took me a while to find it myself.
|
jep
|
|
response 312 of 357:
|
Jan 27 14:08 UTC 2004 |
I request, once again as I did in item:75: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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 313 of 357:
|
Jan 27 16:15 UTC 2004 |
I note that this proposal is expressed as the question, "Shall the staff
be directed to leave these two items as permanently deleted?" A negative
answer does not require any action be taken.
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 314 of 357:
|
Jan 27 17:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 315 of 357:
|
Jan 27 18:08 UTC 2004 |
I was busily setting up the vote program this morning and getting
ready to start the voting, since John 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.
I interpret John's #312 as withdrawing the go-ahead, so I won't
start the vote on his proposal unless and until he gives me
the go-ahead again.
Once the voting starts though, there's no turning back....
|
naftee
|
|
response 316 of 357:
|
Jan 27 18:52 UTC 2004 |
Thanks greemers!
|
jep
|
|
response 317 of 357:
|
Jan 28 03:28 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.
John, please go ahead and start this vote. Thanks!
|
remmers
|
|
response 318 of 357:
|
Jan 28 11:56 UTC 2004 |
Okay, I'll start the vote tonight.
|
naftee
|
|
response 319 of 357:
|
Jan 28 22:34 UTC 2004 |
Rock on fremmerS!
|
remmers
|
|
response 320 of 357:
|
Jan 29 02:20 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 321 of 357:
|
Jan 29 02:23 UTC 2004 |
Thank you, remmers. My votes have now been cast. :)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 322 of 357:
|
Jan 29 19:46 UTC 2004 |
I strongly urge a *NO* vote on this proposal. I have seen no good reason why
jep's items should be treated any differently than valerie's. Since there
seems to be agreement that all of jep's responses will be scribbled for him
before his unkilled items are publicly made available, things will be set
straight for him to do what he should have done, what he was already allowed
to do, before the unauthorized item killing (namely scribble and retire).
|
keesan
|
|
response 323 of 357:
|
Jan 29 20:11 UTC 2004 |
I would have liked the proposal to include the option of other posters also
scribbling their responses before the item was restored since those responses
seem to be worrying jep and most posters would have agreed to this.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 324 of 357:
|
Jan 29 20:14 UTC 2004 |
I voted yes on this proposal.
|
jep
|
|
response 325 of 357:
|
Jan 29 22:07 UTC 2004 |
I, of course, also voted yes on this proposal.
There is no compelling reason for the items to be restored. They won't
be any good to anyone. There has been very little, if any, harm from
them being deleted. I don't think anyone would have ever noticed they
were gone if I'd had the power to delete them on my own, unless I said
something. They were last written to two years ago.
On the other hand, having them gone has been considerably relieving to
me, aside from the time, energy and stress of dealing with them again
at all.
There were no tools for mass deleting one's own responses at the time
that these items were removed. I'm knowledgeable about Unix, but not a
good scripter or programmer. I could have gone through thousands of
responses and deleted them one at a time, and hoped I didn't drawn
attention to the items before I was done... that really wasn't
practical.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 326 of 357:
|
Jan 29 22:14 UTC 2004 |
Yes, but now that you've been promised a mechanism to delete your words, why
are you so hellbent on censoring the words of others?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 327 of 357:
|
Jan 29 22:19 UTC 2004 |
Just vote NO!
|
remmers
|
|
response 328 of 357:
|
Jan 29 23:02 UTC 2004 |
(I voted no.)
|
naftee
|
|
response 329 of 357:
|
Jan 30 01:50 UTC 2004 |
Thank you, remmers and albaugh.
|
jep
|
|
response 330 of 357:
|
Jan 30 02:23 UTC 2004 |
re resp:326: I have written at great length and with great patience
about my request, my decision and my reasoning. I don't think I have
any more to say.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 331 of 357:
|
Jan 30 02:29 UTC 2004 |
THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP< FATTY
|
mary
|
|
response 332 of 357:
|
Jan 30 09:57 UTC 2004 |
I voted no.
|
witzbolt
|
|
response 333 of 357:
|
Jan 30 10:17 UTC 2004 |
I voted "yes".
|
jep
|
|
response 334 of 357:
|
Jan 30 16:02 UTC 2004 |
Thanks very much to all who have voted "yes" on my proposal. I
appreciate it very much.
|
keesan
|
|
response 335 of 357:
|
Jan 30 16:48 UTC 2004 |
Aren't you supposed to be buying us all whisky if we even show up to vote?
|