board77

And I say why move the discussion. I certainly wasn't pretending not to discuss things. What's so darned problematic about having the discussion right here?

There is no real purpose for having committee discussions in the jury room except to exclude input from non-committee members. However, that input is not excluded at all, it is merely placed in the business room, and it's difficult to keep up with all that's said in both places.

Jn, I'm getting a hyper vibe from you which makes me feel anxious. Unless we are in some huge hurry to get this done, can we just chill a little. Please

I'm convinced you don't sleep

halplm wrote:

And I say why move the discussion. I certainly wasn't pretending not to discuss things. What's so darned problematic about having the discussion right here?

There is no real purpose for having committee discussions in the jury room except to exclude input from non-committee members. However, that input is not excluded at all, it is merely placed in the business room, and it's difficult to keep up with all that's said in both places.

Actually hal having the dicussion in the JR keeps the committee focused, well it keeps me focused. That way when you and Cerin/Jn start bickering again in the discussion thread (because you always do, it never fails) I won't have to read it and sort through it and become side tracked, because you can't bicker with Cerin/Jn in the JR, thank goodness.

It gives structure to the committee and allows committee members to hold polls without worrying that non-committee members will vote in them.

Once again, hal, you have accused people of good-will of creating an injustice that they have never, in fact, created. I for one am tired of your repeated false accusations. You have to start giving credit to the work and honesty of others. What comes from your mouth is one slur after another. By now there is not a contributing person on this board whose integrity you have not attacked.

The committees have always taken careful note of the parallel discussion taking place in the business room and have pasted member comments into the Jury Room when these were salient. The members themselves get their own chance to vote on everything that the committee finally presents.

What we do not have to do, while in the Jury Room, is pay attention to pointless griping that inserts itself into the Business Room thread. I know it would please you very much to disrupt and destroy the work of every committee and create the anarchy that seems to be the only kind of arena in which you can survive, but the Committee members themselves do not like to work under those circumstance.

I hope very much that what will come out of this fray which has been going on for two months now is a triumph of the builders and the do-ers and a big pile of shame dumped on the cursers and destroyers by all the other members of this board.

Jn

right, because we want to set up a tiered system of respect for members.

All hail the committee members, and curse you scum that don't like it.

You know what I take offense to that hal. You know damn well what you are saying in regards the committee being held in the JR to keep people out and silence them is bullshit.

I just want to smack you! You seriously are acting like a petulant child. And I'm one of your biggest supporters! I do feel people have the wrong impression of you, absolutely, but you really aren't helping by pretending that people are out to get you.

hal,

You seem to think you have a clear sense of what the board should be run like, even though I don't think anybody else really understands what you want, and I say this as someone who is generally inclined to agree with you on a lot of this stuff. So how about this - since you know what you want the board to be and since you seem to believe you know how the board should be run, PROPOSE SOMETHING!! You know what you want, apparently, but do almost nothing but complain about how what others are doing is not what you want done. If the people DOING something aren't doing what you think should be done, then DO something you think SHOULD be done, damnitt! Propose what structure YOU think would be ideal, what rules or guidelines YOU think would best suit the board, what procedures or lack thereof YOU think would think would be best for the board, what powers YOU think the admins should or should not have - propose that to the board in some coherent, meaningful, useful form so that we as a board can take a look at it and say whether it is something we want or not. If you are NOT willing to do that for whatever reason, then you need to stop bitching at the people who ARE willing to do that because, quite frankly, it accomplishes nothing except making you look like an ass.

Hal...

Brilliant Yov . And might I add, stop just picking apart what others have propsed unless you have a suggestion as to how it would be better a different way.

halplm wrote:

Why does there have to be a supermajority at all?

Why do there have to be committees and complex rules for voting. Why not just have something along the lines of... If you want to change the charter, propose it, and have a vote. Majority decides.

This whole "process" is simply designed to make it hard to change... It's one thing for a country's constitution to be difficult to change, it's another for a message boards...

Quote:

And I'm saying that shouldn't be the procedure in the future.

For that matter, why have hearings and all that.

Why not have a set of principles peopel are supposed to abide by, have the rangers monitor things with respect to those principles and take action as necessary. And if someone objects to those actions, put the objection up to a simple vote for the board. People can make their case or not, and have people vote.

Dragging everything out through showing evidence and deliberating and all that just complicates things.

People seem to not ever see my suggestions. It's my fault I'm sure. It's why I've thought about putting a lot of effort into writing out how I think things should work... but haven't done it, because why spend the effort when people are going to ignore it?

halplm wrote:

halplm wrote:

Why does there have to be a supermajority at all?

Why do there have to be committees and complex rules for voting. Why not just have something along the lines of... If you want to change the charter, propose it, and have a vote. Majority decides.

This whole "process" is simply designed to make it hard to change... It's one thing for a country's constitution to be difficult to change, it's another for a message boards...

Quote:

And I'm saying that shouldn't be the procedure in the future.

For that matter, why have hearings and all that.

Why not have a set of principles peopel are supposed to abide by, have the rangers monitor things with respect to those principles and take action as necessary. And if someone objects to those actions, put the objection up to a simple vote for the board. People can make their case or not, and have people vote.

Dragging everything out through showing evidence and deliberating and all that just complicates things.

People seem to not ever see my suggestions. It's my fault I'm sure. It's why I've thought about putting a lot of effort into writing out how I think things should work... but haven't done it, because why spend the effort when people are going to ignore it?

HEY buddy!!!!! Read this...

TehKatie wrote:

Okay so you are making a suggestion for the future,

Quote:

All hail the committee members, and curse you scum that don't like it.

This isn't rational at all. All committees have a parallel thread in the business room for non-committee members to add their input. That's the way things are. No one is hailed.

TheMary,

I don't mind if we wait until January 2 to start. And I don't mind if we start now. But whenever we start, we should start in the Jury Room and handle things systematically so that it can be done quickly.

If people are going to open this particular topic for discussion now - the supermajority - then we should all move to the jury room and discuss it there.

Hal's suggestion is duly noted that a supermajority should not be needed for Charter amendments.

Jn

Quote:

If you want to change the charter, propose it, and have a vote. Majority decides.

You do realize how unworkable this would be, do you not? Every time one person was unhappy with something, we hold a vote and change the charter? And then someone else doesn't like that change, so we hold another vote. All we would be doing would be voting. That's not a suggestion, hal. Its an avoidance of making any real suggestions.

Jn,

Most of the committee memebers including myself have said that waiting would be best even for the simple stuff. I'm willing to cool my jets until January 2nd, if that's what everyone else wants to do.

I don't think your suggestions are being ignored. Thing is, a few months ago, people agreed that we were going to do things in X way so that's how they're being done right now.

If you want your suggestions taken seriously, you have to present it to the board, not just haphazardly throw out half-formed ideas into the middle of Jn's thread.

PS - Even though I'm not actively participating, I think it'd be nice to have all the members as Business free as possible for the holidays.

Jnyusa wrote:

Hal's suggestion is duly noted that a supermajority should not be needed for Charter amendments.

I agree with this too. In the case of a divisive issue like the Bike Racks, I think it would be preferable to present two options to the entire membership and let it be decided by a simple majority. Otherwise the committee - an even smaller group of people! - has to pick one option for a yes/no vote in order to get a supermajority.

I'm posting this here because I'm not on that committee. I hope that's ok ...

That's how it works, fisssh. Thanks.

Wait are we go for launch on discussion or putting on the brakes?

TheMary wrote:

Jn,

Most of the committee memebers including myself have said that waiting would be best even for the simple stuff. I'm willing to cool my jets until January 2nd, if that's what everyone else wants to do.

That's not actually true, TM. Of the committee members that have expressed an opinion on the subject, there is I believe an even split. Jn, Prim, TED and myself have expressed (in varying degrees of certitude) the desire to do the simple stuff right away. You, Lidless, Elian and Fixer have expressed (again in varying degrees of certitude) the desire to wait. That's why I keep suggesting that we convene in the jury room and vote so we can let the majority of the committee decide.