OK, I'm going to try to assemble whatever agreement we may have reached on this.
I am working from the premise that some one(s) need to be in charge of this voting process, and that this would be a committee for which any member might volunteer.
Idylle: You made four points originally.
1. There should be a normal voting cycle, e.g. votes are always held on the first Friday of the month, so that members know when to look for them.
2. The Mayor should have to power to override the normal voting cycle and bring pressing issues to a vote on his/her own initiative or at the prompting of the members
3. Members should be able to request a vote on any issue - crucial to a democracy.
4. There should be a formal acceptance period prior to the vote in which the issue is discussed and ballot wording is resolved.
You were ambivalent about the revoting issue.
Mossy, Prim, and Voronwe: you all agreed on two points:
1. There has to be some expression of support from the membership for holding a vote on that issue - not just one person's whim
2. There should be a time limit before a revote can be held. Mossy suggests six months to a year, nor more than two in two years; Jnyusa suggests 3 months for a second vote, no more than two in one year.
Idylle: In response to my first draft, you disliked the amount of discretion given to the commitee.
1. Committee should not decide wording independent of the members bringing the initiative
2. Committee should not decide what percentages will be used to determine a win.
3. But we agree that the same percentage cannot be used for all voting forms.
Regarding a quorum, both Hobby and Voronwe tell me that it is possible to determine how many members have been active within a particular time frame.
________________
We have only suggested a composition for this committee in the thread on Standing Committees - a loremaster, a current ranger, a former ranger, and two other members. The loremaster and rangers are there to assure that the vote does not violate the Charter.
Possible Compromise #1: We can widen this commitee, eliminate a ranger perhaps, and say that the members bringing the initiative will also be on the committee. That way they will have a say in the ballot wording and the voting form used and can argue whether their proposition is sufficiently different from some other proposition to justify a new vote.
If they are on the committee, they will also count the vote. Or, we can exclude them from counting the vote ... but there is always more than one person counting a vote so this may be inconsequential.
Possible Compromise #2: We can specify the winning percentages for each form of vote. Off the top of my head ....
POLL: cannot be less than 51%
IRV: cannot be more than 51%
Aggregated: must be more than 51%
Using those boundaries, we can decide on percentages and then the committee cannot guarantee a win or a loss by jiggling percentages.
Another Question: In the first draft, was the following threshold acceptable to you or not? If not, please state your preferred alternatives:
A request from the Mayor, or from two current administrators, or from five registered members regardless of status will be sufficient to convene the Committee on Binding Votes.
Another Question: Do you agree with Idylle that there should be a normal voting cycle and only extraordinary issues would be voted on at a different time?
Another Question: Do you like the idea of specifying a quorum as a percentage of active members during a particular time period? Farawen long ago suggested a percentage active within the last two months. Mossy suggests 50% active within the last three weeks. Faramond generally was unhappy with how weak our ratification quorum was and wanted tougher requirements.
Jn
_________________
"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.