board77

Again I must disagree. I believe the the amendments we are currently working on offer two different viable methods for addressing the BR problem.

Unless you are referring to the problem of people not agreeing about everything and sometimes arguing over those disagreements. I kind of like that problem. It keeps us from being TORC.

It doesn't really matter if they are two viable options to fixing the problem. There is a chance neither will pass. I'm not sure I understand the refusal to make the simplest change possible as quickly as possible, and then worry about "fixing" the bikeracks later.

This thing COULD drag on for much much longer. I hope it doesn't, but the fact that it could is the problem.

It's not shutting down discussion. It's not avoiding input. It's not making it so people don't have input right now. It's addressing the IMMEDIATE problem quickly, and then worrying about the larger issues at a more leisurely pace.

Do you think the nastiness of this fight would have been as bad if we had put up for a board vote on day ONE asking what interpretation of the charter the board thought was correct? I doubt we would have ever even had a chance for "emergency powers" being used, and the committee wouldn't even exist... UNLESS people didn't like what the board said, and thought the BR needed to be revised.

Instead, we have an ongoing conflict, two proposals that are so different they don't actually address the root problem, and both are confusing enough that people who don't care won't vote for them.

Quote:

Do you think the nastiness of this fight would have been as bad if we had put up for a board vote on day ONE asking what interpretation of the charter the board thought was correct?

Yes. Because we would have immediately had winners and losers.

I aim to have no losers.

It's impossible to have no losers. Trying to have no losers prevents action and delays the inevitable result.

It is better to have winners and losers and have the losers be willing to accept their loss. Democracy is not about pleasing everyone. Democracy is about pleasing more than you upset.

Maybe that's where we're seeing differenetly, Ax. I'm proposing we decide democratically, you're saying this place is about deciding as a whole community.

The danger to tryign to please everyone is... you may please NO ONE.

I'm proposing we decide democratically, you're saying this place is about deciding as a whole community.



Now I'm really curious, Hal. Would you please explain what you think democracy is?

Jn

Democracy is the rule of the majority, with each person having an equal vote.

It is not about pleasing everyone. It is about pleasing more than are not pleased. That is all. If we had 100 people, and 51 chose one way, and 49 were really pissed off about it, the 51 still get their way.

Trying to get 100 peopel happy about the same idea is not only impossible, it wastes time, and will generally result in 100 people NOT happy about the idea, but willing to accept it just to have SOMETHING done.

Democracy is the rule of the majority, with each person having an equal vote.

And that's different from letting the whole community decide ... how?

Jn

If I am being a complete pain in the ass Ax only said he'd like to please everyone, not that he expected to.

If I did not believe we could come up with a proposal that satisfied more people than a simple interpretive vote would, hal, I wouldn't be working on it with the rest of the committee.

But I do. I said I aimed to have no losers. I realize that's not likely, but the attempt makes it at least hypothetically possible, unlike a straight up-or-down party-line vote, which makes it impossible NOT to have losers, and very possibly quite a few. Up to 49.9% of the board, in fact.

If the board chooses not to adopt any proposal offered by the committee, we will go from there. But I must hope that will not be the case, and that we can produce something the board decides is a pretty good idea. Because after all, we are part of the board. We are not outside consultants, or professional lawmakers, but B77ers. No more, no less.

Now if everyone will excuse me, I am now going to return to concentrating on the work of the committee and, oh yes, the rest of my life.

yeah, it's a shame that's taking up all your time on the board... isn't it.

hal your whole arguement is based on the fact that you don't think the new amendment is going to work, but you have no way of knowing this, and the rest of us are willing to spend time to see if it will work.

my whole argument is that this takes too much time and is not actually democratic. It is trying to make sure everyoen's voice is heard while rules are written, rather than identifying the problem, finding the simplest solution, and VOTING on it.

Making things more complex never helps. Finding simple solutions and building on that creates less confusion and still remains democratic.

If B77 IS a democratic board, things should function democratically. If it is a "please everyone" board, which sounds like a "utopian" experiment, then it's very different than I ever thought, and it is doomed to utter failure.

Yeah I see that now hal sorry

hal, while I tend to lean in your direction and think the charter stuff is generally ridiculously out of control, Tosh's argument on the previous page is hard to get around:

Quote:

The trouble is, Hal, that saying 'hey why don't we just do this or that' means the next poster in an hour could say 'No, hey why don't we do something else entirely' Whose voice is more important then? Yours or the next person's? Who does the board follow and what is the significance of it anyway? Who decides whether a majority of posters agree? Someone a week later could say 'What was decided last week sucks, lets do this.' The only way that would work is if you were in charge, or the next poster or the one the week later. That's why we have structure.

From the Hearing wrote:

As I understand it, the jurors, individually, can ask you whatever questions they each feel are relevant to the case.

But hal hasn't been judged yet so there's a chance that a penalty won't be required therefore Cerin's opinion on what she thinks should be done with hal woudln't be relevant. Therefore she shouldn't answer the question because it is IRRELEVANT!

I hope I too am being clear.

TheMary wrote:

From the Hearing wrote:

As I understand it, the jurors, individually, can ask you whatever questions they each feel are relevant to the case.

But hal hasn't been judged yet so there's a chance that a penalty won't be required therefore Cerin's opinion on what she thinks should be done with hal woudln't be relevant. Therefore she shouldn't answer the question because it is IRRELEVANT!

I hope I too am being clear.

But I think the problem is is that we won't be able to ask any further questions once we close the testimony portion of the hearing. If Tinsel feels this question is important to her (or may be really important to her), then she has no choice but to ask it now, whether it ever comes into play or not.

If we are mistaken in this view, then we're open for enlightenment! As it stands, Snowdog has made a decision, and the ball is in Cerin's court.

(And, for the love of God, if I shouldn't be discussing these things, will someone please tell me to shut up!!!!)


Lali

I'm sorry, but for Cerin to answer that question at this time would be detrimental to the hearing IMO. Not trying to be a pain in the butt but I really feel strongly about this.

Original drafters what were you thinking when you drafted the charter?!

While I think it is essential we contribute to amendment discussions I think we should steer as clear as we can from discussing the actions of jurors in Hearings. They have the benefit of advice from a loremaster and can call on advice if they want it but second guessing their decisions from the sidelines can be dreadfully destructive. They are being brave enough as it is holding the hearing in public. I think they have made scrupulously clear that any response is not binding on their decision.
Please give them space.

You know what I'll give them space once I feel like I have my space and not until then.

Unless you can show me where in the charter it says I can't object to the hearing process.

TheMary wrote:

But hal hasn't been judged yet so there's a chance that a penalty won't be required therefore Cerin's opinion on what she thinks should be done with hal woudln't be relevant. Therefore she shouldn't answer the question because it is IRRELEVANT!

Mary,

We aren't given another opportunity to ask questions after we reach a verdict. As Voronwe pointed out earlier, there is no "penalty phase" like there would be in an actual court of law (and as I pointed out earlier, Thank God. ). As I see it then, all the questions that I'd like to hear the answers to must be posed now.


Edit: Crossposted with several people.