board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Bit More Discussion on Recent Vote

Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 8 posts ]
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: Bit More Discussion on Recent Vote
Posted: Fri 08 Jul , 2005 4:40 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Friends:

There was discussion in the threads while voting took place which indicated that three items need clarification before we finalize Charter text. I've put approved text in the first post of each of the threads, but it has not been moved into the charter yet.

(1) The meaning of "one year" in Article 7: Binding Votes. (Both Hobby and Faramond questioned this.)

The approved text now reads:

A binding vote cannot be held for a proposition that has been defeated by an earlier vote during the past 6 months and the same proposition cannot be voted on more often than twice in one year. It is the responsibility of the Committee to determine whether the proposed vote is allowable. If the committee is divided, a straw poll will be taken and a simple majority of the committee members will decide whether the vote is allowable.

Hobby raised the question whether the one year provision is not redundant. It would not have been redundant if we had said that votes have to be separated by three months, or if we had said that a vote can only be repeated once in two years. But because we said that votes should be separated by six months and take place no more often than twice in one year, we gave the same answer to both questions and the second provision is in fact now redundant.

With your permission, I will remove it. Raise objections to this promptly, please, if you do not agree.

(2) Faramond raised an objection to allowing a binding vote (Article 7) to overturn a provision of Article 8: Policy on Thread Deletion. He wanted the reference to Article 8 removed as one of the things that would require a binding vote.

We have not yet completed Article 8. We're setting out to do that now. But I will comment that we already have a situation before us where Faramond's objection is relevant. Rangers have had to exercise Extraordinary Powers, and it concerns a binding vote and a thread deletion, and it will be up to us to review the situation because we are the Charter committee currently convened. (Hobby will post it when it is morning again in Europe.)

So ... a suggestion that we deal first with Article 8 and our current emergency situation, and then if we need to remove something from Article 7 as a result, we can do it afterwards.

(3) There was a big block of first-draft text concerning the composition of the Charter Amendment Committee which went to a vote with absolutely no discussion. Hobby registered her discomfort with this, and though no one else did, I suspect we were all just anxious to get through this stuff. But as long as we are still have threads here to deal with, I'll ask you guys to be a tiny bit patient and read through this text carefully one more time, and if you have questions or objections to raise them here in this thread. If no objections are raised, we will go with the text as approved. But I don't want something as important as the Charter Amendment commitee given less than adequate consideration.

Composition of the Committee to Amend the Charter
The committee will have an odd number of members, no fewer than seven, no more than thirteen. The Mayor and one Loremaster will be voting members of this committee. The composition of the rest of the committee will be as follows:

If the committee was convened after the exercise of Extraordinary powers by a Ranger, it will also include:
• the current Ranger who was involved in the incident and one other current Ranger;
• one former Ranger;
• a minimum of two volunteers from among the rest of the membership.

If the committee was convened by an initiative of the Mayor or two current Rangers, it will also include:
• the two current Rangers who brought the initiative;
• one former Ranger;
• a minimum of two volunteers from among the rest of the membership.

If the committee was convened by an initiative of the members, it will also include:
• one current Ranger;
• one former Ranger;
• a minimum of three volunteers from among the membership, one of whom will be a member who brought the initiative;
• and if five or more volunteers are accepted from among the membership, two of them will be members who brought the initiative.

The Committee will be convened by posting a sticky thread in the Business Forum and accepting volunteers in order until the committee is filled and composed as required. Any registered member may serve on the committee.


Thank you!

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 08 Jul , 2005 4:57 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
There was also this suggestion that I made, that I don't want to get lost in the shuffle:
Quote:
One thing I would like to revisit. I would like to consider whether to add the text in blue (or something similar) to the following text:
Quote:
A binding vote cannot be held for a proposition that has been defeated by an earlier vote during the past 6 months and the same proposition cannot be voted on more often than twice in one year, unless a genuine change of circumstances justifies holding an additional vote. It is the responsibility of the Committee to determine whether the proposed vote is allowable. If the committee is divided, a straw poll will be taken and a simple majority of the committee members will decide whether the vote is allowable.
What if a month after a vote is held, something occurs that makes it clear that a different answer may be appropriate? Do we not have to have some kind of mechanism to accommodate such a situation?


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 08 Jul , 2005 5:01 am
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
Quote:
Faramond raised an objection to allowing a binding vote (Article 7) to overturn a provision of Article 8: Policy on Thread Deletion. He wanted the reference to Article 8 removed as one of the things that would require a binding vote.
I couldn't find Faramond's objection, so just to clarify. . . this would mean that a binding vote could not overturn the Policy on Thread Deletion? Or that a binding vote would not be required to delete a thread?

If it's the former, then I think I agree. I don't really don't like the idea of threads being deleted, except for the ones noted in Article 8, even by a binding vote.

I'm I'm completely off, then just ignore this post. ;)

I agree on the first point, and have no comments on the third at the moment.

EDITTED to say that I agree with Voronwe's addition.

Last edited by MaidenOfTheShieldarm on Fri 08 Jul , 2005 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 08 Jul , 2005 5:11 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I personally agree with adding that clarification, Voronwe. That was indeed what the discussion revolved around - how the committee would determine whether this was a rehash or justified by changed circumstances, but the text does not currently point to the nature of the decision the committee is being asked to make.

Let us see whether others agree.

Also - we can put the rest of Article 4, and the Amendments to Article 5, up for ratification at this time. I am working on a summary right now and will try to load the thread in the Business Room tomorrow. I can load it using the Mayor sig so that it will be "official"

To run for two weekends inclusive, that vote can begin on Friday, July 22 at 11:59 pm GMT - which gives us:

1. an extra long discussion period which we probably don't need for these particular Articles, BUT ALSO ...

2. an opportunity to slip the other things ready for ratification into the Business forum after we finish a (hopefully brief) discussion in this thread.

I don't think it matters if the discussion periods begin at different times, but I do think it is helpful to the members if multiple votes all begin at the same time.

If we are efficient here, then all of these can be ratified at the same time:
Article 4, additional provisions and amendments,
Article 5 additional provisions and amendments,
Article 7 on Binding Votes,
Article 8 on Thread Deletions,
Article 9 on Forum Readability, and
Article 11 on Standing Commitees

We must finish this discussion by early next Tuesday in order to do that.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 08 Jul , 2005 6:11 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Jnyusa,

1. OK

2. Confused

3. It's fine


Voronwe,

The change is fine.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 08 Jul , 2005 5:35 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
I wholeheartedly support Voronwe's additional text :)
Jny wrote:
So ... a suggestion that we deal first with Article 8 and our current emergency situation, and then if we need to remove something from Article 7 as a result, we can do it afterwards.
Agreed :)

I have also no objections to the text 'Composition of the Committee to Amend the Charter ', read that very carefully the first time around ;)

Looking forward to seeing the rest of Article 4, and the Amendments to Article 5 up for discussion and ratification soon in Business and yes, I also think it is helpful to the members if multiple votes all begin at the same time. No matter that discussion starts at different days, some will be a bit longer, others shorter but they'll all be min 10 days before voting starts, right?

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 09 Jul , 2005 10:12 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Agreed to Voronwe's addition. :)

It doesn't really matter now, since we voted for the twice in one year option, but:
Quote:
Hobby raised the question whether the one year provision is not redundant. It would not have been redundant if we had said that votes have to be separated by three months, or if we had said that a vote can only be repeated once in two years. But because we said that votes should be separated by six months and take place no more often than twice in one year, we gave the same answer to both questions and the second provision is in fact now redundant.
That's not quite what I meant.

The problem was that twice in two years is not the same as once in one year!

No matter whether we vote for a separation of three or of six months - if the second clause had said: once in one year, the first clause would have been redundant!

It's just a logical quibble.

Twice in two years means: we can vote now and again in three months, and then not again for 21 months - or we can vote now and again in six months and the not again for 18.

Once in one year means: we can vote now - and then not again for 12 months, no matter whether there's another provision allowing us to re-vote in three or six months!

It would have made question 7 redundant!
But this mixed up option didn't get voted for, so that's no problem. :)

Just thought I should explain this. :D

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 09 Jul , 2005 10:34 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Oh. I guess I put up what I thought Mossy was saying rather than what she actually said. :oops:

But I guess it doesn't matter now, because no one seemed to want less than twice in one year.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 8 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest”
Jump to: