Let me post here the PM's that are going back and forth. I'll add Frelga's comments to this post when the sun comes up on her side of the continent.
____________________________________________________
FROM: JNYUSA
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:07 am
Subject: committee needs help
Frelga, Ax, and laureanna,
The charter committee has been working on the Article about Binding Votes. We were considering how to phrase the exceptional circumstances under which a revote would be allowed on the same issue in less than the usual six-month waiting period.
We had four texts to vote on, and we tied on two of them. It was a runoff vote, so no chance that a second vote would give us a different result. We could discuss it among ourselves for a few more days, but we really want to get the last of these Articles up for ratification by Tuesday evening.
We thought we would give these two texts to three former or potential committee members who are eminently fluent in English and ask you to confer with one another and convey to us your majority preference.
Here are the two texts:
1. A binding vote cannot be held for a proposition that has been defeated by an earlier vote during the past 6 months 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.
2. A binding vote cannot be held for a proposition that has been defeated by an earlier vote during the past 6 months unless a genuine change of circumstances or serious ramifications not previously recognized justify 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.
If you don't want to do this you don't have to. But thanks in advance.
Jn
______________________________________________________
FROM: FRELGA
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:43 am
Subject: Re: committee needs help
Me? Fluent? Oh, you mean "a notorious nitpicker". But I'm very flattered anyway.
I'll read up on the committee discussion so I can at least appear intelligent when talking to others.
Frelga
________________________________________________________
FROM: LAUREANNA
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:49 am
Subject: Re: committee needs help
I've posted my thoughts to Ax and Frelga, but they are probably asleep by now.
________________________________________________________
LINKS SENT by Jnyusa
________________________________________________________
FROM AXORDIL
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: committee needs help
I agree with Laureanna. Figuring out that something just plain doesn't work would be an unforseen result, for example, and thus a serious change in circumstance.
There is also the real possibility (as occured at least once before in the committee) that some people WILL forsee a problem resulting but be in the minority. Let us not punish foresight.
__________________________________________
FROM: JNYUSA
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: committee needs help
Ax, thanks for taking this on.
Where are you seeing laureanna's comments? I haven't gotten anything from her yet except confirmation that she would help.
Jn
________________________________________________
FROM: AXORDIL
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:40 pm
Subject: Re: committee needs help
Quote:
I have read the thread leading up to this, and it seems to me that the revelation of a "serious ramifications not previously recognized" is a "genuine change of circumstances", that could alter the way people vote, and thus is a redundancy. I'd go with version #1. [end quote]
Would it be possible to insert "serious" or "relevant" some other qualitative marker? I mean, if I get a different keyboard, that's a change in circumstances, but it's not a good enough reason for a revote.
_____________________________________________
FROM: FRELGA
Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: committee needs help
Here's what I'm sending to laureanna and Ax (I don't think there's a way to send a PM to three people at once, is there?)
--------------
I think changes and ramifications are two different things. Change is something that occurs independently of our votes. If we ratify the Article that says that there is no charge to he membership, and next month b77 is charged $300/month for storage space, that's a change. If we vote to change Admins to Rangers and as a result 500 football fans show up and don't want to talk about anything else, that's a change, too, but one that was came to pass as a result of our vote.
I really don't think that there's a fundamental difference between the two wordings. Both seem to say, "We shall do our best based on the available information and if the new information becomes available we will adapt." But the "ramifications" version appeals to me. It implies the possibility of looking back and saying, oops, we were wrong about this one, let's fix it before more damage is done. It takes into account the law of unintended consequences, in which I fervently believe.
So, at this point I'm leaning towards version 2, but I am not yet ready to cast an actual vote.
Now if you asked me for input on the wording…
P.S.: ramification, n. - A development or consequence growing out of and sometimes complicating a problem, plan, or statement. Such long, difficult words you use.
----------------------------------------
FROM: FRELGA
Mon Jul 18, 2005 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: Ramifications
Forgot to forward this exchange with Axordil from yesterday... If we are to vote, I would vote for the "ramifications" version.
____________________________________
FROM: AXORDIL
Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:10 pm
Subject: Re: committee needs help
OK, here's my vote, such as it is.
I just can't support the word unforeseen in the second clause. It raises the paradoxical possibility of someone noting a decision is going to cause trouble and thus making it INeligible for reconsideration, since it is thus NOT unforeseen.
So if a gun is held to my head between the two, the one clause version gets my vote.
If I were starting from scratch, my version would be phrased in a limited positive sense as opposed to negative, and carry introductory prose for future generations:
Bearing in mind the need to balance stability with the law of unintended consequences, a binding vote can be held for a proposition defeated by an earlier vote during the past 6 months only if a genuine and significant change of circumstances justify holding another vote. It is the responsibility of the Committee to determine whether the proposed vote meets this criterion. 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.
___________________
FROM: LAUREANNA
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:22 am
Subject: Re: What I sent to jnyusa
What Ax said.
__________________________________________
_________________
"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.