Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Marc and all assembly members,

  What's wrong is which is which.  In other words which motion is
Jamie's Rebid motion and which is Alexanders seemingly purposfully
confusing Motion?

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> What is wrong with:
>
> Motion 1
> [ ] agree
> [ ] do not agree
> [ ] abstain
>
> Motion 2
> [ ] agree
> [ ] do not agree
> [ ] abstain
>
> Making it a one vote thing reduces the chances of either motion getting
> 50% to a large degree. In fact, the addition of the second motion could
> then easily be interpreted as an attempt to make sure that there is
> practically no consensus outcome of the vote possible. Or, if one is
> suspicious, as a means to silence the GA.
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2002, at 09:14 [=GMT+0200], Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Thomas Roessler presented one possible ballot:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my
> > >message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
> > >
> > >        [ ] motion 1
> > >        [ ] motion 2
> > >
> > >        [ ] abstain
> > >
> > >The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_ motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which can happen:
> > >
> > >- One motion wins (> 50% yes), and the other one loses (< 50% yes).
> > >  In this case, there is no doubt that the motion with > 50 % yes
> > >  should win.
> > >
> > >- Both motions get more than 50% yes.  In this case, there's   obviously more consensus on the one with more votes, so that   should be the winner.
> > >
> > >- Both motions get less than 50% yes.  In this case, there's   obviously no consensus at all, so no motion would be accepted.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Gary Osbourne noted that one cannot abstain on one and
> > vote yes or no to another.
> >
> > Joanna Lane has stated that these the two motions either
> > -- are not conflicting Motions
> > -- or, if they were, there should be further discussion to
> >    eliminate one or other Motion.
> >
> > My personal opinion is that the two are indeed conflicting
> > motions, that further discussion will probably not lead
> > to a single motion, that we have to take the vote at
> > a point in time where it still is relevant and that we
> > have to take time constraints on the Secretariat into
> > account.
> >
> >
> > Another possible format:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would mandate that the
> > >question on the ballot is something like this:
> > >
> > >        Please select one of the following options:
> > >
> > >        [ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
> > >        [ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
> > >        [ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.
> > >
> > >You'd make precisely one "x" (or abstain).  Obviously, only one of
> > >the options could get more than 50% of all the votes.  In that
> > >case, that option would be adopted.  If none of the options gets
> > >more than 50%, there would be no consensus on the GA, that would be
> > >documented, and we could at least try to return to more important
> > >things.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Joanna Lane noted that one cannot agree with both or disagree
> > with both, or agree with one, but abstain on another motion
> > with this ballot.
> >
> > Gary Osbourne stated that this might work reasonably well with two
> > options, but wouldn't scale if there was a third option.
> >
> > Please send your opinions on which form of ballot is appropriate
> > (and *please* be as exact as possible).
> >
> > Best regards,
> > /// Alexander
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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