board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Amend Binding Votes: VOTE CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 2 of 4  [ 68 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 2:46 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
No, not another tie, I think. The only tie, if my recount in the other thread is correct.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 3:02 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Right, I confirm the recount in the other thread. I had Mossy down for A instead of B.

Let me come back to this problem here because it takes a long time to move the ballots around and get approved text up and such.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 3:12 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
We have previously used or devised three tie-breaking procedures in the past.

The first procedure is a compromise between the two options, but this seems impossible here.

The second procedure is to have the membership vote between the two options.

The last procedure is that the mayor casts the tiebreaking vote.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 3:21 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Well, there's not really a Mayor, Faramond. Because I have not been elected to that office but am only keeping records updated as a courtesy to the future elected Mayor, I have not been assuming the other prerogatives of the office.

We can have another runoff, but as the first vote was an instant runoff, there is no logical reason why the result would change. Every single person expressed a clear preference for one of these two options.

Maybe we should discuss the ramifications of each option and then hold a runoff vote? Perhaps if things were clarified people would change their minds (and we'll have a tie with everyone having changed their mind) :)

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 4:14 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
If only I had abstained on this question ...


I have no objection to more discussion and another vote, though I wonder if it will accomplish anything.

Or we could form a three or five person committee of members not on the constitution committee and let them decide the issue. Open a thread in the business forum and let interested members (there must be some, right?) sign up. They can discuss the ramifications of both options for one or two days and then vote.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 4:49 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Possible.

This has to be up for ratification discussion by Tuesday evening or else the vote on this Article is laid up for another week.

I'm thinking perhaps Frelga could do this - we had invited her to be on the committee and she didn't have time but she might be able to do this - she's good at language stuff. Former committee members floating around that remain interested ... Ax, maybe? And one other ... laureanna, maybe?

Should I PM them and ask if they would consider the two texts and take a straw vote?

It's not an orthodox approach, but our fallback is that all this stuff has to be ratified by the members no matter who comes up with it, preferably sometime before Christmas. :(

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 4:58 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Cerin has also taken an interest in this stuff, right?

In fact I believe it was she who even suggested the clause under question here, but that should not disqualify her in my opinion.

Well, no matter who it is, yes I think you should PM them and ask them to consider the texts and take a quick vote. :)

The idea is to let the decision be made by some members who will give this sufficient consideration. And this will do that I think.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 5:33 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
In fact I believe it was she who even suggested the clause under question here, but that should not disqualify her in my opinion.

I thought of Cerin, but would very much prefer that it not be someone who wrote one of the text options.

I will PM Frelga, Ax and laureanna and see if they would be willing to confer together and reach a decision.

Jn

Edit: OK, did that. If the rest of the committee does not want to accept the majority opinion of those three people, you don't have to, because this is not exactly orthodox. But I can't lead dicussions of these minor text points forever and ever. I'm really counting on getting out of here by Tuesday, and I think the solution Faramond has proposed is as good as any other.

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: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 8:17 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Since I voted for neither A nor B and several others voted for just one of them, it seems to me that Prim's suggestion of a vote on just A and B could work.

I'm not against the other method though. It just seems premature to wander outside of the committee.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 3:27 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
Well, since the three of them have already been asked to independently review this question, it works for me.

:)


(It's not as if A and B are so far apart, anyway. A leaves a door open for an exception to the 6-month no-change rule, and B leaves the door a bit wider open, IMHO. Either will accomplish the goal.)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 3:27 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Since I voted for neither A nor B

But you did express your preference between A and B in the runoff, as did everyone else. Unless someone changes their vote .... and if two people change their vote ....

We need an odd member to break the tie, Idylle, and it makes more sense to ask three people to consider rather than just one.

But this is unorthodox and I don't want to force it on anyone. I just need to get myself out from under the process as quickly as possible.

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: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 3:43 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
As I said, I'm not against the alternative.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 3:57 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
I just reread my previous post and realize it could come across as snarky.

:oops:

Let me rephrase myself...


The three-member group having the final decision on this question is fine with me. Personally, I don't think that the two choices are that far off; both allow for a possible route around the six-month no-revote rule, and I believe that is really the point here. Thank you Jn for sending out those PM's.


And I know I shouldn't put non-business stuff in this forum, (I am trainable :P) but I did want to say thank you to the folks who welcomed me back here after my vacation. Ya'll are awesome!


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 3:57 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
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.
__________________________________________

Last edited by Jnyusa on Tue 19 Jul , 2005 7:44 am, edited 3 times in total.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 18 Jul , 2005 12:33 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
I'd have just had a revote among the top two articles, like Prim said.

I don't mind asking a group of other people, but I think the committee should have been notified of this decision (or rather of the question before it became a decision), rather than Jny and Faramond deciding that between themselves within two hours (not giving much of a chance for anyone to weigh in, there isn't even a change in the thread title) and picking three people just like that - sorry to have to say so. But thanks for posting the PMs, Jny. :)

Edit: have just read the PMs, and as people are discussing, I hope we can weigh in, too.

I agree with Frelga - what she said is exactly the reason I voted for this option.

_________________

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
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 18 Jul , 2005 9:45 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Jn is out of commission with a bad back, and we need to settle this. Jn said in the new discussion thread in business that we would have this worked out by the time the membership votes, starting July 29th.

There's no reason we can't all weigh in with our opinions, but we have already voted. I understand your reservations, Hobby, but this is a really small article and is the last thing standing in the way of finishing. Can we simply finish what Jn started?

Or would people much prefer a two-choice revote? Jn's objection was that it would probably produce another tie, leaving us in the same spot with less time to settle anything.

Discuss?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 18 Jul , 2005 10:01 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Oy!

Well, if this is really bothering people, then I suppose we could have a second vote between A and B, and if we still tie after the revote we can go to the votes of Axordil, Laureanna and Frelga.

The thing that bothers me about this is we all already made a clear choice between A and B in the instant runoff. I worry that someone might just shift their vote now to get this thing settled once and for all, which is not how this should be decided.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 18 Jul , 2005 10:05 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I know, oy—but we do have to be able to put final language up for ratification—we can't ask the members to vote on <WATCH THIS SPACE>.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 18 Jul , 2005 10:12 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
My question is who is going to make the decision here?

I think we should go with the tiebreaking decision the discussion leader made. It's a fair and unbiased method in my opinion.

If we decide to overturn Jn's decision, then what decision do we put in its place?

And who makes that decision and how do we all affirm it's the decision we want for our tiebreaker?

I don't think we need to debate anymore or look for another tiebreak method. We have one going on right now that's fair and sensible.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 18 Jul , 2005 10:28 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I am fine with Jn's procedure, also. But Jn posted elsewhere today that she doesn't care how we settle this, as long as it's settled, and there was an objection.

I'm not trying to hijack the process. I'm just urging, as a committee member, that we all move this along to some sort of conclusion.

Jn has said that if we continue her procedure, someone will have to contact the tiebreakers and ask for their final decisions. So someone other than Jn is going to have to do that, and we will have to allow it—it's a necessity, not a usurpation.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 2 of 4  [ 68 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Jump to: