Re: [ga-full] Voting regimes

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 08:50 10.04.2000 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> >- The chair approves a ballot to be sent to the membership
>
>Does this mean that the chair has a veto?  Under what circumstances can
>the chair refuse his/her approval?

I would imagine that the chair would influence the decision when:

- No clear ballot text exists (delay until a suitable text is available)
- Multiple competing ballot texts exist, and someone must decide on one
   question to put to the membership (pick one)
- The issue that someone wants to put forward is irrelevant to the GA
   ("flying pigs considered harmful")


> > - In the case where the question is a rule change, the number of votes
> >    cast must be at least half of the membership.
>
>I object to this when applied to rules that were not adopted with this
>requirement.  It entrenches the current rules which were adopted in the
>face of a very small and very split vote.  Further, as the membership
>grows there is not telling what turnout will be.

A point. And my original reason for not making them more strict.

>I also object to this when applied to any vote: If people don't care
>enough to vote, that should not be counted as a "no" vote against any
>change.

I do not understand what you are objecting to: The specific rule on
rule-changing votes, or that such a rule should be there at all?

>How about a much lower threshold please?

Agreed. See previous message.


> >The idea behind the last one is that if most of the membership doesn't
> >like a result, they can request a new ballot. But a change of rules may
> >close this option, so it should be more difficult to do that.
>
>If the chair has a veto, this seems a trivial danger.  If the chair does
>not have a veto, I think a lower threshhold will at least blunt the
>problem.

One reason for having a threshold is to blunt the ability of anyone - 
INCLUDING the chair - to get rule changes passed that the membership does 
not agree with.


>Or, perhaps the chair should have the ability to say that rules changes
>which would limit participation should be subject to a minimum
>participation rule, but not those which enhance them.  Then, for example,
>votes to impose list moderation would require a high turnout, but not
>those to remove it?

we can argue until the cows come home about whether list monitoring and 
list rules (note: it is not moderation) increases or decreases 
participation - so far, I think it increases participation.

Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

                        Harald





--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no

--
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