My preference would be the latter. I would prefer a two part ballot, the first part of which would be a single question asking whether the member approves of amending the Charter to allow for a veto of potential ToE members in general, and the second part of which would include a series of questions that would refine exactly what form the amendment would take. The results of the questions in the second part would only be relevant if the answer to the first part was yes.
My initial reaction is that this will lessen chances of the first part passing. For that reason, I would prefer offering the whole package as a yes/no vote.
I think we could include a question giving several options regarding explanations, ranging from no explanation to the Cerin's proposal
We could also include an option of several different choices of the number of different ToE members that would be required to support a veto, rather then agreeing on one number.
Voronwe, this is the work that is usually done in committee through votes. Meaning no disrespect, I think this is a terrible idea. Reiterating, I think we should present one concise amendment for an up/down vote, because I think this has the most chance of passing and making quorum.
One option that I would not support including on the ballot, I am sorry to say Cerin, is the option of having the Rangers decide whether to exclude a potential participant from the ToE discussions.
Whoa! Where did that come from? That is certainly not part of my proposition.
I don't think that having the Rangers be the arbiters of this issue would be fair to anyone (including the Rangers themselves) and for that reason I would not support even including this as an option on the ballot.
According to my proposal, the Rangers will not arbitrate anything. They will collect objections, report the results to ToE, and communicate the substance of the objections to the applicant.
I think forcing people to explain exactly why they feel that way would be unfair.
What about fairness to the person being declared untrustworthy?! Honestly, this is so incredibly one-sided I can't believe it.
As I said, I will continue to be vocal in my protest against any amendment that doesn't include this modicum of respect for non-ToE members, and I will have to hope that it fails because I think it is such an affront to our principles of equality, respect and openness.
I really think that there are very valid arguments on either side and that's why I think it would be best if we could give the membership a choice on this issue.
I think giving choices is likely to doom the amendment to failure. Are you proposing an IRV on each separate question, then?
The duty of the committee is to come up with a ballot that gives choices to the membership, not one choice that a few people feel is correct.
That just isn't correct! The committee has always come up with one Charter article that the membership discusses, controversial components removed and is voted up or down. Are we now rewriting history here?!
Axordil,
Voronwe, can you please tell me of any other time that a Charter Article or Amendment as been offered as a series of choices? Has it not heretofore been the duty of the committee to come up with the most judicious document we are capable of producing, then offer that to the membership for discussion, removal of controversial components and an up or down vote?