Re: [ga] Procedure.

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

alexander@svensson.de (Mon 05/13/02 at 04:55 PM +0200):

> >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.

i did, but in keeping with my remarks about lack of explicit
structure in the process, it was far from clear to me that it
had been settled.

> >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

yeah, but go back and read jon's whole message, as opposed to 
this snippet and you will see VERY clearly why i didn't inter-
pret his suggestion as thomas has.

> 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!

well, someone else (bill?) asked: 50% of the GA or 50% of those
voting?

cheers,
t
--
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