Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Le Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:50:36AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> Agreed: there's no point discussing which number of seconders you want
> to require now, we just need a ballot with several options.
>
> I would also like options:
> - to explicitely say that we want to stay with 5 (no further discussion
> needed)
> - that we want to increase the requirements to 10. (it would probably
> be a popular compromise between the current 5 and Q)
Hi all,
The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a preamble that
clearly explains what problem is being solved. For the moment I do not know if
the problem is the multiplication of the amendments in the Lenny GR, the fact
that the lenny GR could even being started, the fact that an override vote
could be started to force a delegate to postpone his decisions, or a mixture of
both. Since none of this year's GRs were rejected by "Further Disucussion", I
will assume that the problem is the multiplication of amendments in the Lenny
GR. Hi hope that Jörg will clarify this in his GR proposal.
I think that allowing a proposer to call for vote on an arbitrary subset of
amendments is the best answer to the atrocious problem we faced with the Lenny
GR (together with changes on the supermajority system, but it is too early to
vote in a hurry on this issue). Are there people interested in drafting such an
amendment in the case the voting would be started? (do not hesitate to answer
in private if you want to limit the traffic on this list).
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: