|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
srw
|
|
response 575 of 624:
| 
Feb 10 01:11 UTC 1997 |
Valerie, at this point you have to pick one, and have a vote on it.
You probably want to try to guess which compromise is more likely to succeed,
and word it that way. If it fails, I am sure we'll have another vote with the
compromise flipflopped, but we have to have one first.
I have a preference, of course, but I think I will vote for either
compromise on #3, because I think the important parts lie elsewhere. It is
OK with me to have a flawed policy, if it makes more of the users happy than
an "ideal" policy. Another way of saying that is that it is OK with me to
sacrifice a few conferences to keep their participants happy as long as most
of the conferences can be viewed. That's my pragmatic point of view, and I'm
sorry that Richard is so idealistic on this question that he resorts to such
inflammatory arguments. It is unbecoming.
|
richard
|
|
response 576 of 624:
|
Feb 10 02:13 UTC 1997 |
SRW, a building is only as strong as its foundation. Flawed policies are like
chipped bricks. Ifyou dont strive for thebest possible policy, or the
strongest bricks, the building coudl fall down someday. That is what this
is about. Grex is still young. The foundation is still being built. If we
dont strive for ideals now, how is Grex to be strong enough to survive down
the road?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 577 of 624:
|
Feb 10 07:31 UTC 1997 |
Fiddlesticks. None of the proposals that have been made are necessarily
"flawed", and this building will not fall down no matter which is adopted.
Everything we do in a democracy engages some kind of dialogue and hence
compromise. Maybe you think democracy is flawed - and it is by your
requirement of ideality, but as (I think it was) Churchill said,
"democracy is the world's worst form of government, except for all the
others".
|
valerie
|
|
response 578 of 624:
|
Feb 10 14:14 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 579 of 624:
|
Feb 10 15:46 UTC 1997 |
Lets have this version and the original version votedon at the same
time...that way the odds are increased that atleastone will pass.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 580 of 624:
|
Feb 10 18:11 UTC 1997 |
AARGH!
Thanks, Valerie. It looks like a well-written proposal, and should be voted
up or down, depending on how you feel about unregistered reading and
conferences being able to switch back and forth.
Me, I'm voting no.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 581 of 624:
|
Feb 10 19:58 UTC 1997 |
Re #579: it is better to conduct one vote at a time (unless the subjects
do not overlap). Conceivably, both could pass, which leaves a dilemma.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 582 of 624:
|
Feb 10 20:25 UTC 1997 |
To pass, would this motion need a 3/4 majority voting in favor?
|
richard
|
|
response 583 of 624:
|
Feb 10 21:12 UTC 1997 |
sincem ost would vote for one or the other, butnot both, I think the odds of
both passing are sim and none. Conceivably, both could fail. Butthat could
fail. When this was deferred form a board vote, Valerie promised to put the
original proposal up for a board vote. I dont see how circumstances have
changed. Lets have a voate on both.
|
robh
|
|
response 584 of 624:
|
Feb 10 21:13 UTC 1997 |
Re 582 - Yep, the same as any other by-laws amendment.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 585 of 624:
|
Feb 10 21:57 UTC 1997 |
Re #583 - you are correct: it didn't hit me until I had posted. I was
thinking you were proposing *separate* votes for the two proposals. If
members could only vote for one or the other, however, it is probable
that neither would be adopted, as it is unlikely just one would get 2/3 of
the total votes cast. Therefore I oppose simultaneous votes on two proposals,
by either protocol. Each one should be voted up or down separately (if it
comes to that).
|
scg
|
|
response 586 of 624:
|
Feb 10 22:06 UTC 1997 |
This isn't a bylaws ammendment, is it? It should only need a simple majority.
|
robh
|
|
response 587 of 624:
|
Feb 10 23:31 UTC 1997 |
Well, looking over #0 again, I guess it isn't. Pity, I was
hoping it would require 75%... >8)
|
richard
|
|
response 588 of 624:
|
Feb 11 02:00 UTC 1997 |
Andsinc eit isnt a bylaw amendment, both couldbe voted on ast the same time,
and one should get over 50%
But maybe theboard wants to vote first to decidew if this shouldbe a bylaw
amendment or not
|
richard
|
|
response 589 of 624:
|
Feb 11 02:26 UTC 1997 |
perhaps a vote should be postponed until cfadmin can take4 a straw poll of
all the conf fw's to see which confs and how many confs would want to be
closed? That would be instructive
|
rcurl
|
|
response 590 of 624:
|
Feb 11 06:57 UTC 1997 |
Whoops...I was too easily influenced... Why "should" one g et over 50%?
They could both be voted down (one can vote NO on the one one likes least).
|
dang
|
|
response 591 of 624:
|
Feb 11 19:39 UTC 1997 |
They don't need over 50%. If only one person votes, and votes yes, it passes.
Simple majority.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 592 of 624:
|
Feb 11 19:53 UTC 1997 |
That's what's been bothering me. The voting rules need to be specified more
clearly. Normally, a motion passes by a majority of those voting on the
motion voting for the motion. With two motions to vote upon, one *should*
be able to vote on both. If not, the rule still applies: each motion is
passed if a majority of those voting on that motion support it. This is
all pretty theoretical, since it remains that voting on two overlapping
motions simultaneously is a poor way to proceed.
|
remmers
|
|
response 593 of 624:
|
Feb 11 23:41 UTC 1997 |
Bear in mind that the bylaws require a minimum two-week
discussion period before voting on a proposal. So even if
somebody makes a new one *today*, the vote on the current one
will be over by the time we could start voting on the new one,
since I'm going to go set of the vote for the current proposal
right now.
|
remmers
|
|
response 594 of 624:
|
Feb 12 00:05 UTC 1997 |
Okay, the polls are now open. Type "vote" or "!vote" depending
on what kind of prompt you're at. Polls close at the end of the
day (Eastern Standard Time) on February 21.
|
remmers
|
|
response 595 of 624:
|
Feb 12 00:09 UTC 1997 |
Regretfully -- because I favor the principle of unregistered
read-access -- I've voted against the motion, primarily because
of clause 3. It opens up a can or two of worms, as well as
departing from the principle, steadfastly adhered to until now,
of uniform open access to all conferences.
|
dpc
|
|
response 596 of 624:
|
Feb 12 00:26 UTC 1997 |
I just voted for it; I think it's a reasonable attempt to provide
unregistered access which allows conferences to change their minds.
BTW--there is now *much* more activity in the Grex Coop
conference (and not just on this item) than there is in the
M-Net Policy conference! Strangely believe it.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 597 of 624:
|
Feb 12 01:04 UTC 1997 |
I voted against it. I will vote against any form of unregistered
reading. I just don't like the idea of it.
|
richard
|
|
response 598 of 624:
|
Feb 12 03:05 UTC 1997 |
Since this would change or modify grex's open access statuws, whic is
situplated in the preamble to thebylaws, perhaps this shouold be sconsidered
an amendment...and added to the bylaws if it passes
|
janc
|
|
response 599 of 624:
|
Feb 12 04:35 UTC 1997 |
I voted against it. Personally, I'd like to see unregistered reading on Grex,
but I don't think it is worth the unhappiness it would cause some people to
open all conferences, and opening some conferences and not others just causes
to many administrative headaches.
However, if the motion passes, I will implement it.
|