<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4
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@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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|