I'm going to attempt a summary of what is pending, since there has been a recent flurry of discussion.
-
Proposed wording for the Question 10 provision, this incorporates
Voronwe's latest suggestion for including a reference to protecting the identity of the person objecting (emphasis added just for our consideration here):
When the 10-day period is over a Ranger will announce in the ToE thread whether the petitioner is granted or denied access, will state the number of objections submitted
and will supply the petitioner with a summary of the objections lodged against them, making every effort to avoid revealing the identity of those objecting.
My impression is that we have a majority agreement on including the summary of objections provision with some kind of allusion to protecting anonymity. So is this wording ok with five of us? It is fine with me.
- Various suggestions for the 'collusion' statement:
The original, which Estel said she supported and which I continue to think is the most straightforward way of saying what we mean:
"Please do not collude to deny the petitioner access for inappropriate reasons"
Voronwe's suggestion: "It is a natural reaction to discuss these types of issues with your friends. However, in order to avoid unintentional abuses of this system, it is important that people avoid combining together to deny a petitioner access for inappropriate reasons."
which I didn't care for for the following reasons:
I don't think joining together to deny a petitioner access for inappropriate reasons would be unintentional. I thought what we were trying to say here is, don't do this intentionally. Also, I would rather not encourage people to discuss amongst themselves by actually suggesting that it is the natural thing to do.
Then the variation based on
Tosh's suggestion:
'Please do not attempt to organize a denial of access for inappropriate reasons.'
Where do we all stand on that question? Can five of us informally agree on one of these wordings? If not, I suppose we either default to the wording that passed or take a formal vote ranking the proposed choices (for which we would need full committee participation).
- The important question of how people have been viewing Poll model Proposal B, which was chosen for the final ballot. It seems to me the wording clearly indicates that the voting subsequent to the posting of the summarized objections is intended to be based on those objections, and therefore I have proposed changing the wording of the poll from the one devised for the model that offered no standard and required no explanations:
'I don't want this person to be a member of ToE'
to one tailored to the option that has been chosen:
'Based on the stated objections, I do not think the petitioner should be given access to ToE'
Tosh and I support the change, Estel has said she does not (based on her different understanding of the rationale behind this option, which Voronwe said he agreed with) and Nin says she would not object but doesn't see it as necessary. So it looks like we need two more committee members to agree to change the wording of the poll.
- I need verification as to whether the ratification vote remains open until midnight Eastern time on the last day of the vote.
Edited for clarity.