Re: [ga] Procedure.

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 09:37 AM 13/05/02 -0400, t byfield wrote:

>there should be a ballot with a single resolution on with
>yes, no, and abstain options, and the results should be
>evaluated on a purely comparative basis: did more people
>support or oppose? in the event of a tie, the result
>should be interpreted as a no.

Given Alexander's recent clarifications, if voters can
vote for more than one option then you could wind up
with a situation whereby Option A receives, say, a 90%
yes vote, Option B receives, say, a 91% yes vote.
Therefore a 90% yes vote is not considered consensus.

Further, a yes vote of 67% for Option A and 66% for
option B could occur even if they are incompatible,
or a yes vote of 55% for Option A and 54% for Option
B could occur even though they are diametrically
opposed, either because some misunderstand or misread
the motion, or because the voting procedure is poorly
constructed or understood (as I think is happening in
this case), or because a small minority want to game
the system for whatever reason.

Add an option #3 (and #4...) and increase the problems.

In all these cases the resolution would not be taken
seriously or given any credible weight, nor should it.
That is, the GA looks silly.

There was a suggestion for a motion from Jamie Love.
It needed 10 supporters and got them. The motion is
therefore open to debate (and amendment through a
Motion to amend, which should presumably under these
arbitrary rules also require 10 supporters). Assuming
no amendment, or a supported amendment, then it goes
to a formal vote at a time based either on the Chair's
ruling that further debate won't add to the process,
or on an arbitrary deadline (set for whatever reason).

As James Love's motion received 10 supporters it
should go to a vote. If it fails, then another Motion
is in order. If it passes it stands unless someone
comes up with a subsequent incompatible motion, in
which case the previous Motion comes up for
reconsideration. In Robert's Rules of Order, for
example, a Reconsideration Motion requires a 2/3
affirmative vote, otherwise votes would easily
be overturned by one or two voters.

Just because this is an online voting process
doesn't mean such voting should be done in
parallel, rather than serial, fashion.

I very strongly support t byfield's points. -g

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