board77

Cerin, I looked these over per your request.

Option C of Question 5 (the third sentences) has a grammatical (or semantic) error ... I believe the 'of' should be deleted, so that the sentence would read: We strive to assure all members fair and respectful treatment, etc.

“I assured him of my concern” would be more idiomatic than “I assured him my concern.”

I think the current sentence means, we try to assure members that they will receive fair and respectful treatment (as in, 'don't worry, you'll be treated fairly'). I don't think that is what we mean.

My presumption would be that fair and respectful treatment is an unenforceable member right unless the disrespect were truly egregious. So I think that “assure” is probably the better word.

Possibly you were thinking 'ensure' while reading and that's why the 'of' sounded awkward? If we were able to ensure we would ensure fair and respectful treatment, but I believe we're only able to assure them of fair and respectful treatment.

In the constructions using 'Our conversations cover any topic ..., that is A1 in Q1 and A1 in Q2 I believe it should read 'Our conversation covers any topic ...'

Oh dear ... that's really six of one, half a dozen of the other, whether we want to use the singular or the plural of ‘conversation’. It depends on whether you see the board as one big conversation or not.

Cerin, let’s see which option wins, and then worry about refining it if necessary. I found at least one other grammatical error while I was voting - can’t remember now where it was - but I figured there’s no point in agonizing over something that ends up not being chosen.

Jn

I concur with Jn that "We strive to assure all members of..." is correct - not ensure or insure as we cannot guarantee this, only strive towards it. Little grammatical inconsistencies have cropped up in just about all the ballot texts - we inevitably catch them before the text is chiselled into the charter though.

I'm also pleased that the recent unpleasantness has been resolved and reconciliation arrived at. Personally, though, having been publicly and to a certain extent privately maligned does not incline me to contrition.

I'm not suggesting that we use 'ensure' or 'insure' rather than 'assure.'

What I'm saying is that 'assure of' means something different than 'assure.'

'Assure' means to insure or guarantee. I thought the sentence meant that we strive -- through the governance structure we set up -- to insure that all members will be treated fairly and respectfully. Note, I'm not advocating that we change the wording to 'insure.' I'm suggesting that what we mean is that we strive to insure that all members are treated fairly and respectfully. That's what 'assure members fair and respectful treatment' would mean.

Jn, I know we can't guarantee that. That's why we wouldn't say, 'We assure all members fair and respectful treatment.' That's why we would say, 'We strive to assure all members.'

I believe the sentence as it stands now means, We strive to let people know that they will be treated fairly and respectfully. What its's saying is, we have an area of striving, which is to assure people that they'll be treated fairly and respectfully. It's rather an odd concept, IMO. The practical implication (imaginatively speaking) is that we have some sort of committee, or boardwise practice, of offering a cup of tea and a pat on the shoulder with the comforting words, 'Don't worry dear. You'll be treated fairly and respectfully by the community.'

In fact, Jnyusa, this is really the wording guaranteeing something we can't guarantee. You don't assure someone of something unless you are sure of it.

Let me try an example.

We strive to assure our members three meals a day.

This means we do everything we can to insure that our members will receive three meals a day. It implies that we can't absolutely guarantee it, though that is what our efforts go towards.

We strive to assure our members of three meals a day.

I believe this means, we do everything we can to ease our members minds over the fact that they will most definitely receive three meals a day. This construction implies a guarantee of the thing we are assuring people of.

Edit

I do realize this will probably be a moot point anyway.

Impenitent wrote:

I'm also pleased that the recent unpleasantness has been resolved and reconciliation arrived at. Personally, though, having been publicly and to a certain extent privately maligned does not incline me to contrition.

As on the one hand I deny that my words to you to were defamatory, because I never "maligned" you either publicly or privately, but as, on the other hand, the fact that you claim to have been thus ill-treated in my answer to your PM rules out any further private communication, I wonder whether you'd like us to sort this out in the bike-racks?

ignores the semantical debate above

Friends, there is no reason why we can't continue to discus (and hopefully decide) how to proceed when the "interim vote" is completed.

Some (specifically Cerin, Alatar and Jnyusa) have expressed a desire to present to the membership in addition to the text that we come up with in the interim vote a "stripped down version". They point to the version that Sassy had suggested.

Quote:

We are a self-governing community drawn together in fellowship by a love of Tolkien and good conversation.

However, I have to urgently point out that Sassy's version is not really a true stripped down version. It is only stripped down to the point of including those things important to her (and which also happens to reflect what is important to some of the committee members). It has generated at least as much opposition as it has support). In my opinion, a true stripped down version would need to remove the reference to Tolkien altogether:

Quote:

We are a self-governing community drawn together in fellowship by a love of good conversation.

I seriously doubt that anyone would support this option (I certainly would not). Another type of stripped down version is the one that Lidless suggested, after some coaxing:

Quote:

"To create the best community on the internet and in real life."

I would, if I were honestly considering this as a possibility rearrange it slightly:

Quote:

"The mission of board77 is to create the best internet community possible."

I would be more willing to support this then any other "stripped down" version that I have seen.

However, I continue to believe that the best, most fair, most practical approach is to send the text that gets approved in the "interim vote" to the membership for approval or disapproval. I think it is important not to lose sight of the process that led to the choices on the ballot. Our goal (at least as I see it) is to come up with a mission statement that reflects not necessarily what is most important to each of us individual committee members alone but rather that as much as possible reflects what is broadly important to the membership as a whole. That's what the choices that we are voting on attempt to do. In order for a stipped down version to do that, it must be stripped of everything that is not clearly important to everyone, including Tolkien.

I also must reiterate my strong concern that if we do anything other then present one option to the membership for approval it will be pure chaos. Trying to handle an IRV vote among the full membership strikes me as nothing less then a disaster waiting to happen. Not everyone is going to be happy with the text that we come up with in the interim vote, of course. I dare say that most people would prefer something that is more specifically directed at what is important to them. But I think that if we offer the choice as what most broadly reflects the concerns of the membership as a whole, most people will get behind it. However, if we present it as one of two or more options, people are going to be less likely to support it, and more likely to reject all the choices since none of them specifically reflect what is most important to them. This would be particularly true if a version that is essentially stripped down to mentioning Tolkien as the only specific area of interest were included.

What I would like to do, I suppose, is add a poll to this thread to choose between either sending just the text that results from the interim vote to the membership for ratification or sending it along with one or more other "stripped down" versions. Unless, of course, those committee members who indicated that they thought more then one version should be sent to the membership speak up saying that after they read this they decided that in fact only the interim vote approved text should be presented to the membership, in which case I don't think that a poll would be necessary.

Jnyusa wrote:

“I assured him of my concern” would be more idiomatic than “I assured him my concern.”

I guess I'm reading too quickly. I didn't see this the first time.

Of course we wouldn't say, 'I assured him my concern' if we meant 'I assured him of my concern.'

I'm not sure what 'I assured him my concern would mean.' I guess it would mean that you guaranteed in some kind of way that you would concern yourself with a certain matter.

'I assured him my attention over the upcoming matter.'

Members are assured three meals a day.

This means, members get three meals a day.

Members are assured of three meals a day.

This means, members know they will get three meals a day.

The addition of 'we strive to' complicated the issue.

We strive to let members know they will get three meals a day.

We strive to make sure that members get three meals a day.

I think we mean the latter, with respect to member treatment.

(Again, knowing this is just as likely not to be chosen).

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

Some (specifically Cerin, Alatar and Jnyusa) have expressed a desire to present to the membership in addition to the text that we come up with in the interim vote a "stripped down version". They point to the version that Sassy had suggested.

Voronwe, this is not essentially correct.

For the record, nothing would please me more than stripping down whatever version we decide on, and making sure it is the best it can be stylistically. That was not the issue with Sassy's version.

The issue with Sassy's version was that it elicited more spontaneous and genuinely enthusiastic responses from the membership than any other version I'm aware of.

Here we are, laboring away, trying to construct something that most represents what all the membership wants. What we lose in doing that, is essence, spontaneity, and conviction. We end up with something that might be minimally acceptable to a larger group of people, but isn't going to send anyone into rapture.

What we have in Sassy's version is an offering that garnered recognition of its own merit, because it does retain its essence, spontaneity and conviction. Something unencumbered by the weighty baggage of conference and compromise.

My suggestion regarding Sassy's version (that we offer it as an alternative) has nothing to do with it being a stripped down version of ours. Of course it is not a stripped down version of ours. It is a version that reflects one viewpoint only, which many -- but I don't know what percentage of -- members don't share. I'm perfectly aware of that.

My point in suggesting it be offered is this. Even though it reflects a viewpoint that many members don't share, perhaps it would be preferred by more members than our version.

I can see that it would be extremely divisive to offer that one viewpoint as the only other option. I think the only just way to do it would be to offer it alongside of it a version that represented the other viewpoint -- we don't want to associate the board with Tolkien. Then we'd have three versions: one that represented compromise, and two purer statements. Unfortunately, there has not been a non-Tolkien statement offered that I'm aware of, that has spontaneously and enthusiastically been embraced by members the way Sassy's has.

In the hypothetical case of a three choice run-off (two pure and one compromise) I think if we used our usual run-off system with a careful explanation of how it words, everyone would be satisfied with the result AND ALSO WITH THE FACT THAT WE HAD MADE AN HONEST ATTEMPT TO GIVE EVERYONE A REAL CHOICE.

However, the count would be a nightmare. I don't know what other ideas people might have.

Voronwe, I'm perfectly content to just offer the membership whatever we come up with. I think it would probably alienate the least number of members, because I think they know we tried our best to honor all of the input.

Meanwhile Sassy's version generated a lot of opposition in the middle of the night.

People, I would really urge everyone to relax until we've finished the MS vote and see what we have chosen in committee. Trust me that it will be much easier to decide when that is done.

Hopefully Eru will visit sometime today and cast her vote, and Din and Leoba will show up early Monday morning so that we don't have to wait all day and can use the day for discussion.

As long as our proposals reach the membership for discussion by Tuesday, June 7 11:59 pm GMT we will not have to carry any ratification votes into July.

Jn

It would be great if we could tie it up by the end of June!

I apologize if this is improper. (Since our vote is transparent, I don't see the harm.)

I believe now that we've actually come down to it, I would have supported the Q2 construct over the Q1 because it is more direct, if it had said

We provide democratically governed forums

rather than

We strive to provide democratically governed forums

and if I were assured that there would be no third sentence added.

I just wondered if these two things had been a factor in anyone else's deliberations and final decision.

I guess I'm frustrated because I can perceive what I believe would be the best final version, but I can't vote for it because of one element of composition and the possibility that a third sentence might be added. *sigh*

Jn, the interim vote closes at noon GMT on Monday. I would not be inclined to extend it beyond that unless there are extenuating circumstances. That would give us just an additional 36 hours to decide what to present to the membership and actually present it. In my opinion, that will not be enough time if we don't start at least discussing it now.

But I've had my say, so I'll shut up for a while, and do some of the housework that Beth is expecting to have done when she gets home this evening.

Well, there is already a simple majority for the options that begin with 'democratic' as the first qualifier, so if we want to discuss what will be presented to the membership, we can eliminate all of the Question 2 options.

Here's what's in the lead right now:

Board77 is a democratically governed messageboard community where members gather from around the world for lighthearted conversation, in-depth discussion, and creative collaboration. Our discourse covers any topic of interest to our members, from current events and philosophy to fine arts and the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Unless two of the three remaining votes go for either A or B, there will be no third sentence. If 2/3 do vote one way, the third sentence will be either:

We aspire to maintain a culture of respect, equality and openness.
or
We value a culture of openness, where trust leads to camaraderie and real fellowship.

The fight that is going on in the B-forum is to have either a very stripped-down version that focuses on Tolkien, or a very stripped down version that says nothing about Tolkien.

Our Options: discuss the pros and cons

• We could put up our version as choice #1, Sassy's version as choice #2, and the first sentence only of our version as choice #3. We would have to run this as an IRV - otherwise we haven't got a prayer of ratifying anything.

• We can put our version up and say 'take it or leave it.'

Other suggestions?

Jn

Jn, I think that's a good idea (if we offer multiples), to use the first phrase of whatever we choose as an alternative to Sassy's.

How would we approach counting a membership-wide IRV?

Those are pretty much the options as I see it as well, Jn.

How would we approach counting a membership-wide IRV

The same as we did for Article 6 ... people would have to vote by PM.

Jn

The three choice option appeals to me because I think members would feel they'd had more of a real say in choosing the MS.

Edit

I guess the only question is, is it worth the extra trouble?

If it guarantees us a quorum, then it is worth the trouble.

I am deeply concerned right now about getting a quorum for the rest of the votes.

Jn

Oh, no. Did we have trouble making quorum on the other votes?

I agree, that is a good point in favor of a multiple MS ballot. Plus it would give us a sense of where the membership stands on tha particular question.

We barely made a quorum for Article 6, and there are three discussions/votes in front of the members right now with more coming on Monday and Tuesday.

Jn

I'm sorry I haven't been following the rest of this discussion - with so much input from everywhere I was getting dizzy, and wanted to say I think it's awesome how Jny, Voronwe and Cerin, too, managed to keep an overview on all this.

I thought that the options we were voting on now already represented the collected ideas of the threads in the Jury Room and the Business forum, so I was surprised to read now that there are new options coming from the Business forum still.

However, if incorporating these would be a better representation of the members' ideas, a bit more work shouldn't be a problem - I'd be most willing to collect PM votes again.

I just think that we'd need to explain IRV very carefully, seeing how difficult it was to explain the system by which we determined when to open the board - we should be prepared to find ourselves doing a lot of explaining for the results of a IRV.