board77

What is the point of a committee with a set number of people, when most of the conversation takes place here, with Cerin checking in every few hours and cross-questioning everything in situ, and everyone checking with her and answering the list of points she has made?

I don't get it. Audience participation by all means, but this is getting out of hand.

Now I understand everyone wants Cerin to be happy with it, otherwise Complaintfest III will start when it's proposed to the membership, but really!

I have faith in the committee members to come up with good answers, which is why I haven't been bothering them.

I would suggest people who didn't volunteer to be on the committee, and that means anyone, to back off, just a tad, and let them focus on their job between themselves.

I'm not quite sure why Cerin should even be able to make suggestions on the text of an amendment.

Basically, she is tryign to be on the committee while still being able to claim she's NOT on the committee.

Everyone on the board is free to make suggestions as to the text of amendments. This has always been the case, and a lot of useful suggestions have come in from outside the committees; some found their way into the final texts.

Since Cerin headed the last amendment committee, I don't blame her for questioning what appeared to be a different interpretation of the ballot strictures, btw. I was a little confused too.

Each individual poster has the right to speak up, be heard, and have any grievances or questions answered in this thread with regard to the amendment currently under construction. Simply because Cerin has been the most outspoken does not mean she should not speak.

If anyone, including you two, Lidless and halplm, has anything they believe should be in the amendment to be brought forth to the general population for a vote, I would ask that they speak up now as we are getting to the important writing process as we type.

Well, I tend to think the opposite of Cerin, but us having that argument is hardly worthwhile, as neither of us is on the committee deciding what the text should be.

It just seems odd that someone not on the committee is given so much attention by the committee. She could very easily have been on the committee, but chose not to be.

What's the point of having a committee if the whole board has input and arguments about what goes on there before they decide anything? Shouldn't it rather, be deciding thigns for itself, and then presenting them to the board?

It's a rather convoluted setup.

The point of having the committee is to have a relatively small body of people making decisions on content, not to have a relatively small body of people coming up with ideas. Obviously we want as large a group of contributors of ideas as possible, since it increases the odds of coming up with really good ones. Equally obviously we want a much smaller group to go through those ideas, and their own, en route to final texts.

I guess the thing that seems strange is you and others treating what Cerin says here as if she were on the committee.

Meanwhile, no one responded to MY last post

I'm just not seeing what the difference is between having a committee and havign a thread where anyone interested posts and votes before a board-wide vote occurs.

It doesn't behave like most committees I have seen. I don't actually see it as having any function other than making it harder for people interested but not ON the committee to communicate their ideas.

Well, there wasn't much to respond to in your last post, hal, considering that one proposal pretty much keeps lighthearted stuff out of the BR, and the other lets it in. So we're actually doing what you've asked...just not exactly the way you suggest it. Which is normally what happens with suggestions that committees take around here.

If more people--the whole board, say--were involved in the part of the discussion where the text actually gets written, it would take longer and be much harder to come up with final proposals. The committee structure also ensures everyone who is there is interested in the process, either because they volunteered for the committee or for a position that had known committee duties. This helps keep things more or less focused.

Yes, I realize that one proposal allows for lighthearted, and the other doesn't, but there are more complex (and I would say more important) elements to each of them.

The fact that lighthearted threads are allowed in one and not the other should not be a reason to vote for one or the other. And yet, it is the central issue to the conflict, so it should be put to a vote.

I for one, want the option presented without lighthearted posts, to include lighthearted posts... which is essentially a clarification of what we have now.

halplm wrote:

I for one, want the option presented without lighthearted posts, to include lighthearted posts... which is essentially a clarification of what we have now.

http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77

Then go vote for it.

that is not one of the options, Fixer.

hal--

So noted. And we on the committee do read this thread, trust me. But I can't promise anything, beyond the fact that people know how you feel on the subject very clearly now.

halplm wrote:

that is not one of the options, Fixer.

If you only want lighthearted disputes to be in Bike Racks, that is under Option 1.

If you want both lighthearted and all serious disputes to be in Bike Racks, you are correct that is not an option. It was decided that this was what was already in place and, therefore, not a workable option as the complaint has been raised against it.

If more than 67% of people vote to leave things the way they are, I suppose THAT would be the option you would vote for: the option to leave the whole thing alone.

Fixer--

Actually, if 34% or more of the board votes to keep things the way they are, that is, if no amendment gets the 67% required, the status quo remains, which is not exactly what hal wants. Right now, since the language of the Charter is debatable, people can object. Hal wants the Charter reworded so that people can't object, at least not based on the Charter.

Axordil wrote:

That is, it's not a decision. Only decisions can be contested.

That's an excellent point. I had considered that, and wondered if 'action' would be the better word. This action may not be contested.

Because as you say, it isn't a decision. It is a consequence of the clearly delineated requirements. If the thread participants haven't listed your name and you post anyway, your post will be deleted. If you start a thread as a joke (rather than a genuine attempt to resolve a problem between you), the thread will be moved.

Voronwe wrote:

Cerin, I spoke in error. I have clarified my comments in the Jury Room.

Thank you! I was seriously confused there for a moment.

Quote:

If you start a thread as a joke (rather than a genuine attempt to resolve a problem between you), the thread will be moved.

Ah, but that's a decision, not just an action, because it may not be clear as to whether something is a joke or not...certainly not immediately. I could certainly see two people faking a convincing argument for kicks...and there were those who thought MariaHobbit and Mummpizz were joking when they started their dispute thread, and they were quite serious, just not particularly nasty about it.

Axordil wrote:

Fixer--

Actually, if 34% or more of the board votes to keep things the way they are, that is, if no amendment gets the 67% required, the status quo remains, which is not exactly what hal wants. Right now, since the language of the Charter is debatable, people can object. Hal wants the Charter reworded so that people can't object, at least not based on the Charter.

Wait, since when can people not object to anything? I OBJECT!

But the second option WITH lighthearted stuff included, would be the clarification of what we actuall have that makes the objection go away.

Didn't Cerin put forth the second option? Isn't it a bit odd that the simpler option has things the way SHE want's them, and the more complex (and therefore less likely to be voted in or even be a good idea) option contains what she doesn't like?


ETA: When did it get decided that leaving things as they are but clarifying what it means was a bad idea? I would have thought that's exactly what would be the easiest solution to all of this.

Why is there not an option to leave the BR just the way it is? Can that not be an option. It is the option I would vote for, and I am sure there are a good bunch of us silent posters who would do the same.

Quote:

Isn't it a bit odd that the simpler option has things the way SHE want's them, and the more complex (and therefore less likely to be voted in or even be a good idea) option contains what she doesn't like?

I find it seriously unlikely that TP, who wrote up the proposal on her own from my spur-of-the-moment idea, colluded with Cerin so that one proposal ended up longer than the other.

I also don't believe that the length of an amendment has anything to do with its quality or chance of passing. I can come up with several one-sentance amendments to the charter off the top of my head that would be both lousy and unpassable.