board77

Eligibility Clause for Article 6

To be inserted as Clause 3 in Article 6

Eligibility clause
A member becomes eligible to access the "Thinking of England" forum after three months and 25/50/100 posts. After this time, a member can request access to the forum from an administrator.

Before permission is activated, two (or more) current “Thinking of England” posters must sponsor the new applicant. The sponsorship will be in confidence and will take the form of PM to the administrator handling the permissions, stating “I am willing to sponsor [name of applicant]” and will be in response to a notifying post in that forum stating “[name of applicant] seeks sponsorship to this forum”.


NOTE:
This vote is a poll with cumulative percentages.
We require at least 39 votes to make a quorum. Of those 39 or more votes, 66.66% will determine the restriction requirement and ratify this clause. That is, if the first option gets the 66.67% by itself, it is is the winning choice. Otherwise its total carries over the next choice, which is the winning choice if its cumulative total exceeds the needed percentage, and if not, its cumulative total carries over to the next choice, etc., etc.

This Poll opened Saturday 11 June, 9.29 am GMT and will close on Saturday 25 June, 9:30 am GMT (to ensure that two full weekends are encompassed.)

Laureanna has pointed out, and I agree, that since 3B contains 3A, 3A _was_ approved by a supermajority. Just because we didn't spell it out doesn't mean the logic isn't there.

I think we should just put 3A up for an up/down vote without more discussion, instant runoff style. If it fails to get a supermajority, THEN we can beat the dead horse.

It's a technicality, though, Ax, and we can't be sure that all members would support choosing to interpret the results that way. In fact I think we can be fairly sure that at least some would not. For "us," whoever "us" is, to decide to do it that way opens this part of the charter to question and ultimately harms the legitimacy of the whole thing. Or so I see it, and I base this on experience here. It also opens us to the charge of "TPTB" forcing interpretations that suit their preferences and their drive for haste. (As has been pointed out, we're all TPTB here. I personally would like to do as you suggest and I do feel haste, but I don't think it's good for the board to bend the rules.)

To get clear member approval for interpreting the results as you suggest would take precisely as long as what we're doing now, and what we're doing now should give an unambiguous and uncontroversial result.

Edit: You edited while I was writing this post (the nerve! ). The problem with putting 3A up for an immediate revote is that that is not how we agreed that the charter would be ratified.

Does anyone else have a view on this? Am I off-base in insisting on this point? I think we need to settle this and return to discussing eligibility requirements for ToE.

But we have done that already, at some length! We put the three choices that emerged from days and days of discussion up, and one got very little support (no restrictions). The logical choices now are either to just put 3A and 3B up as an either/or, or put 3A up for a yes/no, NOT to osgiliate off in some other direction for ten days.

After all, this whole article is being done somewhat ad hoc, since it is breaking new ground, coming as it is completely outside the convention.

I think we need to put whatever it is up as a yes/no—three choices makes it far less likely that we'll get the supermajority.

However, the charter ratification procedure mandates ten days of discussion followed by ten days of votiing.

I am sure that a winning proposition will emerge much sooner than that, but again, this is the charter—we can't cut corners.

It's not as if everything else is hanging fire while we wait for that. Some major pieces are also up for discussion right now and will be voted on at about the same time as this. Doing this is not delaying anything.

Ax, I feel the same way, I really do. It's just—fudging a ballot result because we know what the board really needs is different only in degree, not in kind, from some much worse things that happened on another board not long ago. The only difference here is that we are supposed to be accountable, our actions are supposed to be transparent, and there are rules that are supposed to apply to everyone equally. I cling to all this like grim death because, to me, the alternative is to risk sliding toward becoming—another kind of place.

We could ask if anyone has a problem with just skipping to a vote on 3A/3B...and then if they do, I will argue them out of the problem.

Ax, you know darn well we haven't yet gotten to creating the office of Bouncer. I'm sure it's somewhere on the agenda though. I'll send you a memo.

Sure we did...oh wait, that was bounDer...my bad.


And look at it this way...would the discussion WE'RE having ever have shown up at the...other...place...?

Not between you and an admin, no. Not typically.

Ax, I asked if anyone had a problem with rounding up in the when to open vote. No one spoke up. Then, when I did round up, it turned into a big foo. I agree that what you propose is exactly what you propose. But I also agree with Prim that if we do that, someone is going to complain about it.

Complainers could always vote no...sorry, had to try one last argument. Like the scorpion, it's in my nature.

Voronwe - I just have to ask ... what is a foo?

I can figure it out from context, but ... is there a formal definition?

Jn

I think it's short for "foofaraw." Which I just looked up and yes, it is in Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary. So I have learned something here, too. (Definition 2: A disturbance or to-do over a trifle : FUSS.)

Imp wrote:

Before I put up a draft clause, may I ask that we all provide a rationale for how we voted, particularly those who voted both options down.

I voted against both, because I don't like how that forum is being treated like it's something dirty that has to be hidden. I think it should be open to any member that wants access whenever they want, with no requirements or restrictions.

The phpbber.com rules state that there should be no obscene stuff on their site. If the stuff in the TOE forum is considered obscene then those posting there are at risk of being banned from the whole system.

Therefore, if what is in the TOE forum is OK and not against the rules of the phpbber.com system, then there should be no restrictions at ALL, not even against minors.

If it IS obscene, then those posting there should clean up the place before they get banned.

If we need to restrict access to comply with US obscenity law... then we are breaking phpbber.com's rules and risking banishment.

If we are not breaking phpbber.com's rules, there is no need to restrict access.

Either way, I see no legitimate need to restrict access- that's why I voted against both options.


I don't see how you could possibly change my opinion on this, Ax.

LOL, I didn't even know it was a real word. I thought I made it up. But that is exactly the definition that I intended.

Can't change it Maria, but I'm going to oppose it. Nothing personal.

Good grief! Prim is a walking idiomagicianess!

So if we all refer to the foo hitting the fan, that will be perfectly clear from here on out, right?

Jn

Maria, from what I have gleaned from the discussions regarding this, it is more of a "comfort" thing than a legal thing. At least that is my take on it.
There are many (some?) people here that are uncomfortable having that forum open to all. There is some talk about protecting children, and adults I guess. I don't think it is because TOE violates any obscenity rules.
I tend to agree with you, but this is the type of issue that can divide a community and I don't think anyone will be harmed by placing some restrictions on that forum. The comfort level of the TOE posters also plays a role in the decision.