Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions"):
> 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
This is a good way to look a the situation and to that end I'll give
my personal view on each of those distinct possible criticisms:
> the multiplication of the amendments in the Lenny GR,
I don't think this is a problem. Our voting system can cope well
enough and the difficulty of comprehending six rather than three
options is not all that great.
> the fact that the lenny GR could even being started,
Well, I think a GR was inevitable. People feel strongly about these
issues and there is no reasonable compromise between the positions of
the `hardliners' and the eventual victors in this vote. So I think
it's appropriate for there to have been a vote.
You may say `but we decided this last time' - but we decided it only
for etch and not for lenny. The last time, we (collectively)
specifically preferred the option of reopening the question now.
> the fact that an override vote could be started to
> force a delegate to postpone his decisions,
That's supposed to be possible and I don't think that was the problem.
But I would like to suggest two other possible criticisms:
that so many of the options on the ballot were so poorly worded
that the decision to impose a 3:1 requirement on some of the options
gave many people the impression of unfairness
That the ballot options were poorly drafted could arguably be
explained in part by the requirement to work around the decisions of
the Secretary. But it was also, I think, exacerbated by a lack of
appropriate assistance from the kind of people who enjoy reviewing
this kind of language. There were few people who were keen enough on
procedural matters that they wanted to assist people in upholding the
RMs' decisions who weren't simultaneously of the view that what was
really being done was to undermine the Foundation Documents.
> 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
I'm afraid that I must disagree most strongly. If effective, that
would give the proposer an ability to control explicitly the options
on the ballot - for example, by excluding compromise views. That's
one of the most effective mechanisms for subverting any kind of
And in any case proponents of amendments could instead propose their
versions as separate GRs. That might result in them being voted on
simultaneously but on separate ballots, leading to the possibility of
mutually contradictory conclusions.