board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Wed 21 Feb , 2018 3:40 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 481 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 25  Next

Do you approve the amendment to Article 6?
Yes 76%  76%  [ 45 ]
No 24%  24%  [ 14 ]
Total votes : 59
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 2:56 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Dear Members

We find ourselves once again in need of a ratification vote, this time to amend Article 6 of the Charter: Age Restricted Forum.

Given the sensitivity of the information posted in the Thinking of England forum and therefore the greater vulnerability of ToE posters to harm by careless or malicious use of that information, we realized as the eligibility deadlines for the forum approached that we need a way to keep people we have reason to believe can't be trusted with such information out of that forum.

What follows for your consideration is the result of our deliberations on how best to deal with this dilemma within the framework of our stated board ideals of equality, openness and respect.

HERE IS HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS:

All registered members are encouraged to discuss and vote in this thread.

A summary of the amendment we are voting on in this thread is given below, followed by the full text of the amendment and an addendum of other minor amendments to the Charter that will be approved (or rejected) along with this amendment in order to make the Charter and the new amendment consistent with one another.

Before voting, we discuss in this thread for a minimum of ten days.

Members are encouraged to comment on the proposal. If certain provisions prove controversial and can be removed without affecting the overall viability of the amendment, we will remove those provisions from the text before the voting begins.

At the end of the discussion, the vote opens and remains open for ten days. The vote takes the form of a poll in this thread, where you will vote either yes or no to approve this amendment.

Voting is now open and will remain open until Tuesday, October 25, 11:59 pm Greenwich Mean Time (which is approximately 8:00 pm Eastern or 5:00 pm Pacific Time).

In order to ratify this amendment, 33 members must cast votes, and of those who vote, two-thirds (67%) must vote in favor.



SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT

ToE members are cautioned to refrain from trying to deny a person access to the forum for reasons unrelated to an awareness of questionable behavior engaged in by that person either here or elsewhere.

When someone asks for access to the forum, the forum members will be asked to consider whether they have reason to believe it is likely that the petitioner will not follow the rules for posting in the forum. If a member does have reason to believe it is likely that the petitioner will not follow the rules for posting in the forum, they are asked to submit a brief explanation of these reasons to the Rangers either by PM to a particular Ranger or by email to the Admin. account.

If at least two such objections are submitted, a summary of each objection received will be posted in a thread in the forum, and then ToE members who believe the petitioner should be denied access based on the stated objections will be allowed to voice this viewpoint by voting in a poll that is added to the thread. If 12 ToE members vote to exclude the petitioner, then they will be denied access to the forum for six months, after which time they may reapply. The summarized objections will be shared with the petitioner at the end of the consideration period, and there will be an annual review of the procedure to assess its effectiveness.


FULL TEXT OF AMENDMENT plus ADDENDUM ------------------------------------

ARTICLE 6: Age Restricted Forum

¶3: Eligibility to Access the Age Restricted Forum

A member becomes eligible to access the "Thinking of England" forum after three months and 100 posts. After this time, a member can request access to the forum from a Ranger. Access is routinely granted unless the required number of ToE members voice their opposition to the petitioning member gaining access to the forum pursuant to the process outlined in ¶4.

¶4: Amendment Procedure for Denial of Access

In recognition of the special level of trust, sensitivity and comfort required in the Thinking Of England forum as already witnessed by the 3 month / 100 posts rule for eligibility, we propose the following amendment:

The following text will be added to the ‘PLEASE READ before posting in this forum!’ sticky in the ToE forum under a heading, ‘Denying Access to this Forum’.

"Seeking to deny another member the benefits and enjoyment of posting in this forum should not be undertaken lightly. Everyone who posts here must take full responsibility for their decision to reveal intimate and sensitive information to people they do not know and may not like. It would be unfair to shift the responsibility for personal feelings of vulnerability to others by trying to keep them out of this forum if the concern is not in some way related to an awareness of questionable behavior on their part."

When a member requests access to the forum, a Ranger will title an announcement thread in the ToE forum with the petitioning member’s name and will post in it the following three paragraphs of text:

"(Member name) has requested access to this forum. Members have until (10 days from day of announcement) to consider whether they have a reasonable belief that the rules pertaining to posting on the ToE forum are likely to be broken by the petitioner based on past experience either here or elsewhere. Those rules include posting in a manner that ridicules, demeans or threatens other posters, or engaging in provocation or the spreading of sensitive information.

"ToE members who object to the petitioner gaining access should submit a brief explanation by PM to a Ranger or by email to the Administrator account (List of Rangers and Admin. acct. email address). A Ranger will send an email acknowledgment to each person who submits an objection to let them know their objection has been received, and will forward a copy of this acknowledgment to a designated ToE member. Once two objections are submitted, a summary of those objections will be posted in this thread and the thread will continue to be updated in this way as more objections are received. Please do not post in this thread; it is intended for official updates only. Members are asked to refrain from publicly discussing the petitioner during the consideration period, as the petitioner is not in a position to respond.

"If at least two objections to the petitioner gaining access are submitted, a poll will be added to the thread approximately halfway (five days) into the objection period; ToE members who believe the petitioner should be denied access based on the objections listed should indicate this by voting in the poll. If 12 members vote to deny access, the petitioner is denied access to the forum for a six-month period, after which time they may reapply. Forum members are trusted to refrain from trying to deny the petitioner access without good reason."

The poll will offer the following options:
- I think the petitioner should be denied access to ToE based on the objections stated in the thread
- This option is only here because a poll requires at least two options

When the 10-day period is over a Ranger will announce in the ToE thread whether the petitioner is granted or denied access 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. The petitioner's thread will be left up for an additional three days, after which time a Ranger will delete it.

If the number of votes is less than that required to deny access, the petitioner will be granted access to the forum and should announce their arrival in the Welcome thread in the forum, which will be created for this purpose.

Discretionary Exception for Extraordinary Circumstance

If a Ranger receives a communication that a ToE member has had a RL experience of a seriously harmful nature with the petitioner, the veracity of which is supported by at least one other b77 member, the Ranger at their discretion may announce in the petitioner's thread in ToE that such a complaint has been brought and the petitioner has summarily been denied access. The petitioner will be informed that a serious complaint has been lodged and their access denied for the usual 6-month period, and will be advised that subsequent requests for access are likely to meet with the same result. The thread will then be locked and deleted. If it is subsequently determined in a hearing that the accusation was false, the accusing member will be subject to penalties up to and including an immediate ban and always including a minimum two-year ban from the Thinking of England forum.

A committee composed of volunteer ToE posters and Rangers will annually review these procedures to assess their effectiveness and determine if changes need to be made. If changes are required, they will make this known to the board at large and the usual procedure for amending the Charter will be followed.



ADDENDUM of Minor Companion Amendments

1. The following provision from Article 2, section A, ¶1: Members Rights and Responsibilities:

(You have the right) to post in our Thiking of England forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) once you have met the eligibility requirements.

will be changed to read:

You have the right) to post in our Thinking of England forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) once you have met the eligibility requirements and if you have not been denied access pursuant to Article 6 ¶4.


2. The text in blue below will be added to Article 3, ¶3 Selection of Rangers:

While volunteers are listed as new entrants, all members are responsible for reviewing the roster to determine whether they know any good reason why a particular volunteer would not make a good Ranger and should not immediately enter the pool of full Rangers when their training is complete. If no member expresses a concern or objection volunteers will enter the pool of full Rangers without delay. If a member does have a concern or objection to a particular volunteer, these must be sent by email to the Administrator account, where they will also be forwarded to the Mayor so that the Mayor together with current Rangers can review them for merit. A Ranger will send an email acknowledgment to each person who submits an objection to let them know their objection has been received.


3. This text from Article 3 ¶4: Routine powers of Rangers:

• In the Thinking of England Forum, enable posting rights when age confirmations are received;

will be changed to read:

• In the Thinking of England Forum, initiate announcement threads and oversee consideration periods in accordance with the instructions in Article 6, ¶4.


4. The text in blue will be added to Article 5, ¶9: Offenses That Merit a Penalty

Offenses for which the maximum penalty for a first offense is an immediate ban
- Spamming the board with ads;
- Spamming the board with pornography;
- Hacking the board;
- Refusing to abide by the Decision of the Jury in a Hearing [maximum penalty is
mandated by Article 3];
- Threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against members [maximum
penalty is mandated by Article 3];
- Deliberately introducing a virus to members of the board.
- Falsely accusing a member of harmful RL actions in order to deny them access to the Thinking of England forum.


Last edited by Cerin on Sun 16 Oct , 2005 3:06 pm, edited 10 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 3:01 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Personal thanks to all the members--you know who you are :D--who have ALREADY been instrumental in getting the amendment to its present form, through your insightful and humane suggestions.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 7:58 pm 
A green apple painted red
User avatar

Joined: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:11 pm
Posts: 3151
Location: Out on the banks
I take it that this will be a Yes/No vote to approve the entire amendment text or to decline it. What will it mean if the majority votes No?

Also, the first post says that certain provisions may be removed as a result of discussion. Are changes to the text theoretically possible? I am not proposing any, but I've been confused about the scope of discussion in previous votes and I think it might be helpful for newer members to have things spelled out.

At least I've learned not to propose grammatical changes. :blackeye: :D

_________________
GNU Terry Pratchett


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:01 pm 
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Posts: 8748
Location: UK
Yes it will be a Yes/No vote to it all. If the majority votes no, then nothing changes.

_________________
Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:19 pm 
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Posts: 7291
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
However, if any particular provision is too controversial, it can be removed during the discussion period, before the vote.

I am foggy on whether we have actually made changes to the text during this phase in the past; I seem to remember that we have, but Voronwë can probably tell us. :scratch:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:21 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Eruname:

Actually, I would say rather that if the majority votes no, ToE is likely to come down with an extreme case of ellipses syndrome at some point.

Frelga:

The Charter provides for the committee removing parts of an amendment for later consdieration if membership commentary directs them to do so.

Quote:
The membership will be given ten full days to discuss the amendment. During that period, anything deemed controversial may be removed and tabled for later consideration, or the amendment may be withdrawn. Following the discussion a yes/no poll will be posted in the thread and members will vote for ten full days, whether or not to ratify the amendment.

A Global email will be sent to all registered member at the start of the discussion and at the start of the vote.


Did someone send that first global email out?

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:21 pm 
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Posts: 8748
Location: UK
What I meant by 'nothing changes' is that there will not be anything added to the charter meaning there will be no protection for ToE. Just wanted to clarify that. I wasn't talking about changes to the ammendment.

_________________
Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:24 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Ah. Yes, Charter Amendment votes are votes between a set of additions and /or changes, and doing nothing to the Charter.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:25 pm 
Waiting for winter
User avatar

Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 1:46 am
Posts: 2380
Location: Jr. High
Does this vote require a quorum?

If you need a count of the active members for determining the quorum, I’ll be glad to do it, but I won’t be able to until late tonight. Perhaps you could get one of the other helpful Rangers to do it. Or you could ask Holby.

:LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO:

Ohhhh man, I just love that one.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:26 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Yes, this one will need a quorum calculation.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:26 pm 
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Posts: 7291
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
I think it has to be done right as the vote opens, Tinwë, so "the past 60 days" is the 60 days right before the vote.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:27 pm 
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Posts: 8748
Location: UK
The quorum doesn't need to be calculated until we're ready to vote right?

_________________
Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:40 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
Primula_Baggins wrote:
However, if any particular provision is too controversial, it can be removed during the discussion period, before the vote.

I am foggy on whether we have actually made changes to the text during this phase in the past; I seem to remember that we have, but Voronwë can probably tell us. :scratch:


We made some very minor, purely cosmetic changes to the wording of the Mission Statement during the discussion period, and I think one other time. We have never made substantive changes. There is no real precedent for what is required to make a major change to the ballot, but from my perspective, it should only be done in extraordinary circumstances. Again from my perspective, the main point of the discussion period is to discuss whether the amendment as presented should or should not be passed.

Quote:
Yes it will be a Yes/No vote to it all. If the majority votes no, then nothing changes.


Actually, if more then 1/3 of the voters vote no, then nothing changes (in the sense that Eru meant it). Because a 2/3 supermajority is needed for the amendment to pass. That should be specified in the first post. Sorry I didn't say so earlier.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 8:43 pm 
Waiting for winter
User avatar

Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 1:46 am
Posts: 2380
Location: Jr. High
Primula_Baggins wrote:
I think it has to be done right as the vote opens, Tinwë, so "the past 60 days" is the 60 days right before the vote.


Erunáme wrote:
The quorum doesn't need to be calculated until we're ready to vote right?


Of course. Just ignore me :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 9:45 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
I copied this basic ratification text from one of the later ones that was previously used. They have always included the stipulation that if some aspect of the proposed Article (we haven't done an amendment before) is 'too controversial' then it will be removed and the rest of the Article voted on.

This text is a bit different, in that it says,

Quote:
If enough people dislike certain provisions we will remove them from the text before the voting begins and allow the committee to work on them again until they are more acceptable to the membership.

I assumed it was ok to use those terms for this ratification since they were used previously, and since they do seem to be consistent with the instructions for Charter Amendment Procedure:

Quote:
The committee itself will vote on elements of the amendment before presenting a final form to the membership for ratification.

The membership will be given ten full days to discuss the amendment. During that period, anything deemed controversial may be removed and tabled for later consideration, or the amendment may be withdrawn. Following the discussion a yes/no poll will be posted in the thread and members will vote for ten full days, whether or not to ratify the amendment.

It seems to me there is clearly provision here to make changes to the amendment, either by removing certain portions that are deemed controversial, or even withdrawing the amendment itself. It doesn't say anything about 'extraordinary circumstances', it simply says 'deemed controversial.' Since we've never had anything controversial arise in a ratification discussion (to my recollection), we've never been forced to decide how many objections makes something sufficiently 'controversial' to warrant taking one of those actions.


Voronwe wrote:
There is no real precedent for what is required to make a major change to the ballot, but from my perspective, it should only be done in extraordinary circumstances. Again from my perspective, the main point of the discussion period is to discuss whether the amendment as presented should or should not be passed.

I disagree. Why did we ever say that controversial provisions would be removed if we didn't mean it? Why did we ask people to speak up about things they object to if there was no reason for them to do so? If we required extraordinary circumstances to implement this, why didn't we say that?


It's important that I be up front about this, because I have been in the akward and undesirable position of facilitating the committee discussion while at the same time being the only advocate for an opposing position. I preferred Option B on the Final Committee ballot, the option that consisted of privately emailed objections to Rangers/Admin. acct. without a vote taking place in the ToE forum. I was the only one to vote for that option in committee.

I think this ratification is unusual in that we have another version of an amendment ready to offer if the aspect of this version that differentiates it from the other -- the poll vote in ToE -- proves sufficiently controversial that we (whomever 'we' might be in this case) deem it should be withdrawn. I think it would be entirely in line with the Charter Amendment Procedure text and with the previously used ratification text to offer the alternate proposal if it begins to appear that this one is too controversial to pass.

I feel the need to point this out on a procedural level, but I must also emphasize that the alternate proposal is my favored position, so that people don't think I am trying to influence procedure because of a desired outcome.

Speaking as a member of b77 and not in my capacity as part of this committee proceeding, I think it would be preferrable to try through this discussion to arrive at some proposal that is acceptable to the membership, rather than having the amendment go down to defeat, leaving the ToE forum with no protections at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 10:00 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Please forgive me if I seem abrupt, I'm writing in haste.

As I understand it (and speaking as a b77 member), the purpose of bringing an amendment to the Charter is to address some perceived deficiency in the Charter. The Charter was created to serve the community; the Charter in the case of Article 6 was seen to be deficient in its provisions for the Age Restricted Forum. We are trying to remedy that with this amendment.

It seems to me that to fail to pass some kind of remedy is to say that the amendment procedure itself is a failure. That's why I believe the focus in this discussion should be to come up with some kind of provision acceptable to the membership that addresses the problem that led to the proposed amendment in the first place, rather than taking an all or nothing approach to this particular proposal (if you see the difference I am trying to draw).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 11:02 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
Tries to write a well-reasoned, unemotional response to Cerin's posts.

Fails.

Promises to try again later.

Makes no promises that I will succeed then either.


Cerin, I vehemently disagree with you. :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 05 Oct , 2005 1:14 am 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
That's ok, Voronwe. :)

I'm just speaking my mind as a b77 member. That's how I see the spirit of the amendment process, and the Charter ratification process in general. The aim clearly, it seems to me, is to ratify. That is the only rationale I can see for saying we'll remove what is controversial -- so that what is not controversial will be ratified.

What do you see as the rationale for saying that controversial portions will be removed, if not to help ensure that the rest (what is not controversial) will be ratified?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 05 Oct , 2005 2:10 am 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
Cerin, what you are proposing is not simply to have a controversial provision removed so that the rest the amendment can be ratified. What you are proposing is that the membership overrule the decision of the committee and substitute the completely different procedure that was rejected by the committee by an overwhelming margin: not just removing the poll provision, but also adding back in the requirement that at least five members would need to send an objection with an explanation to the Rangers, a requirement that does not exist in the amendment that we approved, which only requires two members to send objections with explanation to the Rangers.

The Charter is very clear at what the options are where there is a "controversial provision". The options are either remove the controversial provision and proceed to vote on the remaining amendment, or withdraw the amendment altogether and start over. There is no Charter provision that allows for a "controversial provisions" to be replaced by a completely different provision, which likely to prove to be at least as controversial, and which was overwhelmingly rejected by the committee.

What the Charter does not make clear is what constitutes a "controversial provision" in the first place. In my mind, if a sufficient number of people say that they simply can not live with an option that includes a poll, this amendment should be withdrawn and we should start over.

Frankly, I am probably just as disappointed that the amendment includes a requirement that anyone should have to give any explanations for their objections at all as you are that it includes a poll. But I am still willing to give this amendment my full support because I believe that it represents the best possible compromise between the competing interests that have been expressed so passionately lo these past few weeks (months? years? millenia?). I truly believe that this compromise amendment represents the best (and possibly the only) chance to pass an amendment on this extraordinarily sensitive and difficult issue and urge everyone to accept it as is as the best possible solution so that we can move on.

Oh, and Cerin, :kiss:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 05 Oct , 2005 4:50 am 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Voronwe wrote:
Cerin, what you are proposing is not simply to have a controversial provision removed so that the rest the amendment can be ratified.

I was speaking generally, about the three possibilities that are allowed by the Charter Amendment Procedure text and the ratification text. One is that provisions that are controversial be removed; the second is that the committee would go back to work on the amendment to make it more acceptable to the membership; and the third would be to withdraw the amendment.


Quote:
What you are proposing is that the membership overrule the decision of the committee and substitute the completely different procedure that was rejected by the committee by an overwhelming margin:

I didn't mean to be proposing that in particular, necessarily. The point I'm trying to get at is, we have set up this process to try and facilitate ratification by allowing for various options: removal of controversial provisions, modification of the proposal to make it more acceptable to the membership, or withdrawal of the amendment.

I brought this up because of the comment you made, that the amendment shouldn't be altered except under extraordinary circumstances. I just don't see that assertion supported by the texts in question. We have set up the procedure so that the proposal (whether Article or Amendment) can be modified to make it more acceptable, so that it will be modified if necessary for ratification, rather than having a procedure that requires the proposal remain as presented and go down to defeat if portions are controversial.

The hypothetical scenario I mentioned was just to bring up the fact that in this case, the committee did not just come up with one amendment as we did when presenting articles for ratification; we came up with two different viable, internally consistent proposals. Why did we come up with two different proposals? Because there were some fundamental principles that could not be reconciled in a single amendment.

I was replying to Frelga's question, then, in speculating as to what might happen in this case, if, for example, the provision for ToE members to vote as a group to exclude petitioners was 'deemed controversial.' We might remove that provision, we might take it back to committee to work on it some more, or we might withdraw the amendment and offer the other one in its place, the one that was already constituted in committee. In other words, there would be no need to go back to work on the amendment in committee, because we already have an alternate proposal ready.


Quote:
not just removing the poll provision, but also adding back in the requirement that at least five members would need to send an objection with an explanation to the Rangers, a requirement that does not exist in the amendment that we approved, which only requires two members to send objections with explanation to the Rangers.

Voronwe, that is incorrect. The requirement of two objections is not a threshold for denial of access, that is a threshold for initiating the poll vote in ToE. It is the poll vote registering 12 objections that is the threshold for denial of access for the poll model. So the model would make no sense without the poll. It is a dual process, dual threshold model.

So for example, IF (and this is pure speculation, because I wanted to answer Frelga's question and I strongly disagreed with your assessment) there were objections to the poll vote to exclude petitioners, then we could go back to work in committee to figure out a threshold for the current model without a poll; but that is essentially what was done during those long and arduous discussions, and the result was that the committee decided that for a model without a poll, the threshold should be 5.


Quote:
The Charter is very clear at what the options are where there is a "controversial provision". The options are either remove the controversial provision and proceed to vote on the remaining amendment, or withdraw the amendment altogether and start over.

Well, there is the language in the ratification text (which as I say, I copied from one of the previous ratification threads) which says that the committee can re-work the proposal to make it more acceptable. I'm not sure how this differs from 'withdraw and start over', I think it's basically the same thing -- the committee goes back to work to try to come up with something more acceptable.


Quote:
There is no Charter provision that allows for a "controversial provisions" to be replaced by a completely different provision, which likely to prove to be at least as controversial, and which was overwhelmingly rejected by the committee.

I guess you don't remember this exchange in committee. This is exactly the situation I was trying to avoid, and I thought both you and Ax had agreed with me about it, but I guess I should have pressed further to nail it down.

http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2635&mforum=board77
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:08 pm

I wrote:

Quote:
Here is another thing to consider:

This text is from one of the later Charter Ratification threads, which I am using as a model for our presentation of this amendment in Business:

if enough people dislike certain provisions we will remove them from the text before the voting begins and allow the committee to work on them again until they are more acceptable to the membership.

I think it would behoove us <snip> to decide ahead of time what we're going to do if it looks like whichever amendment we send up isn't enjoying a positive reception.

For example, if we send out the Poll model and a significant number of people object to the idea of a vote as too similar to the loathed invitation thread dynamic, do we reserve the right to withdraw that amendment and offer the other one?

I'm sure you could imagine a reverse scenario as well. If we agree ahead of time on what to do I think it will lessen the chances that committee members might feel disgruntled, or think someone is trying to make an end-run around proper procedure.


Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:52 pm

To which Ax replied:

Quote:
The Amendment process makes it clear that pulling a proposed amendment is fine, and that pulling parts of it for later discussion is also fine:

The membership will be given ten full days to discuss the amendment. During that period, anything deemed controversial may be removed and tabled for later consideration, or the amendment may be withdrawn. Following the discussion a yes/no poll will be posted in the thread and members will vote for ten full days, whether or not to ratify the amendment.

In this case we already have a backup ready to go, either way. I don't see anything that would prevent an amendment from being yanked BEFORE the yes/no vote takes place and replaced with another one, since this is only a condensed version of the process described. We shouldn't be penalized for being prepared.



Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:18 pm

To which you (Voronwe) replied:

Quote:
Ax, I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting.


I then referred you back to the comments of mine that Ax had been referencing, and you said:

Quote:
Oh. I completely missed that post. Now it makes perfect sense. My apologies to both of you.

Obviously, I should have sought verification that it not only made sense to you, but that you agreed with the assertion that putting the second amendment up would be acceptable (in the case that the first proved controversial).

Now we have exactly the situation I foresaw and had hoped to avoid:

Quote:
If we agree ahead of time on what to do I think it will lessen the chances that committee members might feel disgruntled, or think someone is trying to make an end-run around proper procedure.

Well, I take responsibility for not following through then, so that we would have agreement at this stage.


Quote:
What the Charter does not make clear is what constitutes a "controversial provision" in the first place. In my mind, if a sufficient number of people say that they simply can not live with an option that includes a poll, this amendment should be withdrawn and we should start over.

I cannot fathom what purpose there would be in starting over, since we have already exhaustively discussed all the principles involved. We know what we prefer if we don't have a poll model -- it is the other model we voted through in committee.

If you feel that we would have to start over, then I trust that you or someone who shares that view would volunteer to facilitate the second time around. As I said, I see no need to go through all the argumentation again when we have already distilled the preferred options into two discrete, internally consistent proposals.


Quote:
I truly believe that this compromise amendment represents the best (and possibly the only) chance to pass an amendment on this extraordinarily sensitive and difficult issue and urge everyone to accept it as is as the best possible solution so that we can move on.

I honestly don't know which model represents the best chance to pass an amendment. One thing I'm sure of, however -- the possibility of offering the second proposal if the first one is 'deemed controversial' improves the chances of something being ratified, over the scenario of insisting it is either the proposal voted out of committee, or nothing.

:kiss: to you, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 481 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 25  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group