|
Grex > Oldcoop > #114: Proposal: delay before re-voting on a topic already submitted to vote | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 24 new of 79 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 56 of 79:
| 
Feb 10 16:41 UTC 2004 |
I really like remmer's idea in resp:50.
resp:55 I think we can work through that. Either we can require that
the endorsement come from the login id that has the membership or we
can accept it if someone (say a staff member) vouches for the loginid
which doesnt possess the membership.
|
gull
|
|
response 57 of 79:
|
Feb 10 16:48 UTC 2004 |
I like the idea in resp:50.
Re resp:52: Think of it as signing a petition. By definition it's a
public process. This doesn't conflict with the eventual vote being a
secret ballot; it's perfectly legitimate to sign a petition that you
eventually vote against.
Re resp:55: I would say that any member who wished to endorse a petition
would have to do so as the loginid that holds the membership. It's not
exactly a big hardship.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 58 of 79:
|
Feb 10 16:57 UTC 2004 |
The treasurer can tell which login ids are current members. The treasurer
can also tell if a current participant has a login id that holds the
membership that is different from the login id that they are using in this
conference.
If a member wants the "pseudo" login endoresement to count, the member sends
an email to the treasurer saying "Hi, I'd like the endoresement I entered in
coop as pseudoid to count as my member endorsement". As long as this email
comes from the Grex memberid account, we should be fine.
the only caveat is that some people are creating accounts that look to be
attempts to mislead people. For example there is a new account, va1erie, that
on first glance might be valerie. I doubt that it's really Valerie Mates who
created the "va1erie" account, since I noticed a posting from the misleading
account that didn't sound at all like Valerie.
The treasurer would just have to be awake at the switch.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 59 of 79:
|
Feb 10 16:59 UTC 2004 |
Gull slipped in.
I don't think gulls opinion about whether its a hardship or not should be
binding on the member who wants to maintain a separate identity for
membership. Let each member make up their own mind.
|
jp2
|
|
response 60 of 79:
|
Feb 10 17:03 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 61 of 79:
|
Feb 10 17:40 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, it's not a big deal to connect people with memberships.
|
tod
|
|
response 62 of 79:
|
Feb 10 18:47 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 63 of 79:
|
Feb 10 18:51 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 64 of 79:
|
Feb 10 19:08 UTC 2004 |
Let's take remmers' idea out for a spin, shall we? How many members would
have given endorsement to jp2's and jep's proposals? I would have endorsed
jp2's proposal. I'm not sure I would have endorsed jep's - not because I was
against it, but because I considered item restoration to be covered by jp2's
proposal, and saw no reason for special treatment of jep's items.
Other members?
|
other
|
|
response 65 of 79:
|
Feb 10 19:21 UTC 2004 |
I would have endorsed jp2's proposal the first time, and voted against
it. I would not have endorsed jep's proposal the first time, and I
voted against it as well.
|
slynne
|
|
response 66 of 79:
|
Feb 10 21:45 UTC 2004 |
I would have endorsed both proposals and would have voted against both
of them. I wouldnt endorse jp2's most recent proposal.
|
mbroggy
|
|
response 67 of 79:
|
Feb 10 22:39 UTC 2004 |
I'd like to back remmer's idea; it's both a low enough percentage to
get backing for a proposal and likely high enough to screen some
things that might count just as noise.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 68 of 79:
|
Feb 10 23:22 UTC 2004 |
P.S. No need to indicate how you would have, did, or would *vote* on the
proposals (unless you want to). Just trying to gauge whether or not you would
have *endorsed* the proposals, i.e. supported being allowed to be taken to
a vote.
|
krj
|
|
response 69 of 79:
|
Feb 10 23:45 UTC 2004 |
I see two problems with the concept of an endorsement threshhold.
First, an endorsement threshhold does little to address my prime
concern, that an election settle an issue, at least for a good
period of time. Jamie's proposal got about 20% support from the
membership, and that level of support would (hypothetically) allow
the proposal be brought up again, again again, constantly.
Second, Grex has in the past been very proud that it allows any
single member to bring an issue to a vote, and I'm not enthusiastic
about moving away from that.
Feel free to try to convince me.
|
tod
|
|
response 70 of 79:
|
Feb 11 00:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 71 of 79:
|
Feb 11 01:12 UTC 2004 |
Ken - it sounds to me like a lot of the people who voted for Jamie's
proposal the first time don't want it brought to a vote the second time. So
I think your first objection will take care of itself. If we had a group of
9 or more members who not only disagreed with policy but also wanted to be
relentless about it, then yeah, we'd vote on the same thing over and over
again. I suppose if that happens, we can try something else.
|
polygon
|
|
response 72 of 79:
|
Feb 11 03:09 UTC 2004 |
Most systems of parliamentary rules require that a motion at least be
seconded before being voted on.
I don't see a problem with requiring some minimal show of support before
bringing an issue to a membership vote.
|
gull
|
|
response 73 of 79:
|
Feb 11 04:10 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:69: I think the odds of it getting endorsed would fall rapidly
with each iteration, as people lost interest. Under the current system,
this doesn't matter; even if his proposal gets zero votes next time he
puts it to a vote, he can still keep forcing it to a vote over and over.
I would have endorsed both jp2 and jep's original proposals. I would
not endorse jp2's second attempt.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 74 of 79:
|
Feb 11 13:27 UTC 2004 |
The anonymous web reading votes were much closer to 50-50 to start. The
revotes were, IIRC, tweaks that finally made the policy acceptable to a
majority of members.
|
janc
|
|
response 75 of 79:
|
Feb 17 01:45 UTC 2004 |
Yes.
|
krj
|
|
response 76 of 79:
|
Feb 17 05:16 UTC 2004 |
I'm inclined to let this proposal die and defer to remmers' item:122.
|
naftee
|
|
response 77 of 79:
|
Feb 17 16:25 UTC 2004 |
Let that proposal die, and GreX will too.
|
bru
|
|
response 78 of 79:
|
Feb 18 23:36 UTC 2004 |
let it die.
|
jesuit
|
|
response 79 of 79:
|
May 17 02:14 UTC 2006 |
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
|