Re: [ga] Procedure.

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Ted,

At 13.05.2002 09:37, t byfield wrote:
>thomas, this is a really strange -- and totally unnecessary -- method 
>to announce so suddenly. what *should* be a yes/no/abstain VOTE ON a 
>resolution is, by these rules, transformed into a COMPETITION BETWEEN 
>resolutions. the 'suddenness' of this method is a by-product of the 
>lack of structure that has characterized this non-process so far. and 
>i won't even get into the 50% rule, which strikes me as an effort to
>determine the outcome by adopting an arbitrarily complex method.

Actually, if you have read the GA list, you will have noticed
that this has already been debated.
Thomas offered two alternatives: Preferential voting (as used
for person elections, which probably isn't as suitable for
such issue votes) and "one vote per member plus 50% rule".
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00712.html

Jonathan Weinberg proposed a different approach.
>My suggestion: Allow members to vote yes/no on *each* resolution, 
>and then see if any of the resolutions capture a substantial 
>majority of those voting. 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00736.html

To which James Love replied:
>I had not studied the specifics of the proceedure closely, and the 
>system set out by Jonathan Weinberg makes the most sense.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00748.html

About the 50 percent rule which you call "arbitrarily complex":
I cannot understand what you mean by that. If neither motion
is approved by a majority of the voters, you will surely
not consider them approved by the GA? Every motion obviously
needs more Yes than No votes and abstentions!

Best regards,
/// Alexander

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html