Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

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

At 15:46 26.06.2000 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>         I've been letting my email slide, but I sat down today and read 
> the entire
>[ga] voting thread.  Some thoughts:
>
>         1. It's not well taken, I think, to tell Eric that we can ignore his
>proposals aside in passing version 1.0 now, and that he should put them
>forward as proposals for version 1.1.  The reason is that Harald's ruleset
>includes a provision designed to make the rules *hard* to change in
>subsequent versions -- it provides that the rules cannot be changed, once
>adopted, without a supermajority and a special quorum.  The point of
>Harald's Rule 5 is to promote stability by requiring that even proposed
>changes *with the support of a majority of the membership* cannot be
>enacted unless they surmount the 2/3 hurdle.  So this is the last time that
>competing proposals will contend on a level playing field; once we first
>adopt a ruleset, whatever we have already adopted will have a huge
>procedural advantage over any proposed changes.  As a result, it's worth
>focusing on Eric's proposal now.

I intend to declare defeat and go home if the current proposal does not 
surmount the 2/3 + quorum hurdle.

                     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