Cerin, I think we're going to have to let the Loremaster rule on this as an exception to the Charter specification of a yes/no vote, and summarize in the thread (and perhaps place it in the Archive afterwards) the reason for doing it this way.
That's ok by me. I think we should include in whatever we put up, an amendment to the Charter amendment section, allowing other kinds of votes than yes/no.
In my opinion, it would have been better for the committee to tackle the 'real' issue head on, and come up with one clarifying sentence to add to the charter under a yes/no vote instead of doing this dance around the Maypole ... but we seem to be caught in the twilight zone here, and right now I'd just like to get us out of it as fast as possible.
You mean like just adding the word 'solely' or something like that? Where did we bypass that as an option?
As for the line 'disputes that involve violations of the bylaws' - that is a direct quote from the full text of the amendment.
My apologies, fisssh. I haven't given the full rerouting amendment the attention I normally would because I think it is such alot of unnecessary fuss for no good reason (even tp, who wrote it, says she has serious reservations about the rationale for further mock threads in BR).
Referring to the full rerouting text:
2. The Jury Room Forum
• disputes that are likely to lead to a hearing because, in the judgment of a Ranger, violations of the bylaws are involved in the dispute
I would suggest that this bulleted item simply be removed. It unnecessarily blurs the line between hearings and personal dispute resolution for no reason that I can see. The rest of the text covers all cases, and this just sets up another unnecessary judgment having to be made by a Ranger. Until a hearing has been requested, people should be able to pursue their dispute resolution in the place of their choosing, not of a Ranger's choosing.
Well, the easiest way to do this would be to add only to the current text (with maybe some other slight tinkering) and have people vote yes/no. We can still do that without too much trouble.
The tightening proposal basically fills that bill. All it did was eliminate ambiguities in the current wording.
It would make sense to me to just vote yes/no on that because it is only a clarification of what we already have. Whereas the rerouting proposal is a major realignment of forum uses. Are there objections to doing that?
Are there any comments on the suggestion I made in post before my previous last post regarding binding vote plus amendment vote, or is that a non-starter?
Edit
Jn, I've seen your comments in JR that address a couple of these points, no need to repeat yourself.