|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 80 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 50 of 80:
| 
Dec 20 04:21 UTC 1994 |
Huh?
|
srw
|
|
response 51 of 80:
|
Dec 20 05:02 UTC 1994 |
Sorry if that didn't translate well. There are folks who are worried about
dropping quorums. If they all vote against my proposal it mught not get
the 3/4 it needs. So I was looking for ways to assuage their fears about
people "sneaking" things past the majority. This scheme of cicero and
nephi might have had that effect, but I have given up on the idea of
trying to incorporate it into the bylaws, as it appears to be a net
liability based on how many people are offended at the idea.
|
steve
|
|
response 52 of 80:
|
Dec 20 05:27 UTC 1994 |
I don't think we're *ever* going to have to worry about something
being "snuck" in here. Not with a two week voting period.
|
cicero
|
|
response 53 of 80:
|
Dec 20 08:42 UTC 1994 |
I agree also. Two weeks is plenty to avoid something being "snuck" in
I've stated right along that I think quorums are not nescessary, and my
"login quorum" idea was mearly a way that I thought we could keep them
for those who still wanted them. As srw points out, there are some here
who feel that such a system is an imposition on them (I can't follow
their arguments myself, their negative reaction seems completely philosophical
(ie. not practical) and totally out of proportion to any invasion of privacy
that I can see--but they are entitled to their opinions) so it seems that it
is not going to be a useful compromise. I just hope we can get a majority
to go for dropping quorums (I mean a big enough majority) because otherwise
I don't know what we're gonna do. There doesnt seem to be an acceptable
middle ground.
|
tsty
|
|
response 54 of 80:
|
Dec 20 17:07 UTC 1994 |
One of the true beauties of a conferencing system is to suggest
ideas and see where, or if, they go. Viola! This was an idea that
flew for a while. srw now believes the drop-a-quorum idea has a
less than even chance of being chosen. Ok, fine, it was a worthy
idea nonetheless.
On the same note, I would like to see if the idea of a +lower+
percentage be considered as a quorum is membership-acceptable
|
rcurl
|
|
response 55 of 80:
|
Dec 20 19:06 UTC 1994 |
The situation is going to get worse. When we have ten times the
number of members we have now, we would probably run into the same
thing again. Lowering the quorums so that one is pretty ensured, isn't
much different than eliminating them. I go along with RRO, who say
they are just bad ideas for organizations that have a dispersed
membership. (We can't avoid the ones imposed by the *State* - if
we just don't want to avoid quorum hassles, why not just limit it
to those required by the State?).
|
srw
|
|
response 56 of 80:
|
Dec 21 03:30 UTC 1994 |
I agree with the part of TS's post (54) that this is one of the beauties
of conferencing. I am misquoted there about my expectations for the
drop-quorums proposal. I believe we have a good chance of getting the
3/4 majority we need, but 3/4 is a lot and I could easily be mistaken.
Right now I am guardedly optimistic about it.
What I no longer believe is that the acknowledgment counter is a helpful
precaution to protect us from anything evil.
I do not favor lowering the quorums short of eliminating them, for reasons
stated adequately by rcurl in 55 and others elsewhere.
|
tsty
|
|
response 57 of 80:
|
Dec 22 13:10 UTC 1994 |
AS the membership grows, the recognition of a longer voting
period for the increased size of the voter pool would be reasonable.
It has been mentioned before, reinforced here.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 58 of 80:
|
Dec 22 15:22 UTC 1994 |
Members don't have to get on line to vote. If 15 days is OK for
50 to vote, it doesn't take 30 days for 100 to vote. In fact, with
the SUN upgrade, more RAM, etc., we have in effect added parallel
voting lines. However, I would not suggest shortening the voting
period because of that, either. Its a policy question, not a
numerical question. I think 15 days is generous and reasonable.
|
steve
|
|
response 59 of 80:
|
Dec 22 19:19 UTC 1994 |
Unforunately, we haven't added anything where it counts the most,
which is Internet bandwidth.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 60 of 80:
|
Dec 22 23:32 UTC 1994 |
Nor have we added "free time" in members' personal lives, which is
probably the biggest restrictor that keeps people from logging in often
enough to vote. We don't have much control over that, except to keep
the polls open long enough that all the members have a chance to get
around to logging in to vote.
|
remmers
|
|
response 61 of 80:
|
Dec 23 02:22 UTC 1994 |
I favor a longer voting period.
|
tsty
|
|
response 62 of 80:
|
Dec 23 02:44 UTC 1994 |
agreed.
|
steve
|
|
response 63 of 80:
|
Dec 23 03:47 UTC 1994 |
How long? Three weeks, a month? I'm hoping that we don't go beyond
that, much.
|
mdw
|
|
response 64 of 80:
|
Dec 23 05:04 UTC 1994 |
I greatly favour a month. I can think of very few things we've voted
where there really any serious need for a rush. Something that did need
that kind of rush is probably something the staff or board should be
willing to do anyways, or it's something that probably shouldn't be
done. I've seen organizations that worked just fine with a 3 month
voting period.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 65 of 80:
|
Dec 23 07:34 UTC 1994 |
I have no problem with a one month open ballot. I know an organization
that uses 50 days (but, by mail) - can ensure getting reminders out
in a newsletter, or otherwise. However, long or short, what is needed
is to keep up a beat on the voting drum. Maybe *that* could be linked
to whether one has voted or not - the drum-beat stops when one votes.
|
andyv
|
|
response 66 of 80:
|
Dec 24 09:22 UTC 1994 |
In this last election, I wonder how many people were still casting ballots
after the first three days. 50 days for snail mail that gets missplaced
and discovered after a month, but the motd isn't hidden or lost here.
|
carl
|
|
response 67 of 80:
|
Dec 24 12:58 UTC 1994 |
Yes.
Out of curiosity, has anyone tried mailing the members who didn't vote
to see if there is a reason they would care to share why they didn't vote?
My guess is that most, for whatever reasons, chose not to be involved in
the election process.
I'm in favor of allowing a person to be a member and not participating
in elections. I'd also like to see the quorums removed. Of course,
I'm also counting on the continued open discussions. I trust what
I have seen so far of the Grex comunity that: 1) a small group wouldn't
be able to manipulate political pressure without being noticed, 2) upon
being noticed, someone would call it to the attention of the greater
comunity, and 3) the comunity would be able to respond appropriately.
I support the idea of having the polls open for a month at a time.
|
remmers
|
|
response 68 of 80:
|
Dec 24 15:12 UTC 1994 |
Re #66: It would be an easy matter for me to determine *when* people
cast their votes in the election, without looking at how they voted.
Would people be interested in this information?
|
jep
|
|
response 69 of 80:
|
Dec 24 16:25 UTC 1994 |
I would be, John.
|
remmers
|
|
response 70 of 80:
|
Dec 24 16:30 UTC 1994 |
(And to clarify, I wouldn't identify when particular people had
voted, but would simply present a list of how many votes were
cast on each day that the polls were open.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 71 of 80:
|
Dec 24 19:57 UTC 1994 |
Re #66: yes, the motd is seen by everyone that logs on - but one problem
Grex has, not common in society, is that you have to log on to know that
something is happening. I am sure many members are not such regular users
that they are on even monthly, and those miss almost everything that
occurs over a short period of time. In the "outside" world, mail reaches
members without their making a deliberate effort (or there are other
communication means, such as radio, TV, newpapers, etc). But Grex has just
that one very thin electronic link to its members. Maybe Grex should start
a short newsletter, sent by paper mail - just to be in touch with members
(heresy? - we do send a brochure by mail).
|
andyv
|
|
response 72 of 80:
|
Dec 24 20:45 UTC 1994 |
The reason I use this computer and my computer at home is to avoid paper
mail. I am renewing friendships with e-mail which were impossible with
snail mail.
The motd is like a marquis a business puts out along the road. The ones
that don't change often, I ignore unconsciosly. When I lived in Tucson,
one small business ahd a different pithy saying every day and I along
with lots of other people drove by each day ignoring everything else except
that small marquis.
By the way, what is wrong with "News?"
|
robh
|
|
response 73 of 80:
|
Dec 24 21:01 UTC 1994 |
Our news disk is sick, or something like that.
|
tsty
|
|
response 74 of 80:
|
Dec 24 21:33 UTC 1994 |
That's part of it.
|