Discuss mailing list

[subhuman <discipline AT gmx.net>]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 00:38:47 -0500
Quinn Wood <wood.quinn.s AT gmail.com> wrote:

I completely concur with the Abstract and Necessity parts.
> 
> "Proposals must be submitted only when complete and ready to execute.
> Proposals that seem incomplete or not ready to execute may be ended
> prematurely by a motion to table the proposal until future notice,
> which must be seconded. This motion may be overruled by a second
> motion and second, which cannot be overruled. Once a proposal has been
> tabled, it may not be discussed further except upon re-submission. One
> individual may not take part in all four processes (proposal to table,
> second to table, proposal to overrule, and second to overrule.)
> 
> "Discussion of proposals is to allow prospective voters to make an
> informed decision about what they are voting on and what the
> consequences of their votes will be. It is not a time to suggest
> improvements to a proposal. If a voter identifies part of a proposal
> which make their decision for them, they should express this in a
> civil fashion to ensure others who agree vote accordingly. Those
> responsible for a proposal may address such concerns, but may not make
> major changes to the proposal without tabling the proposal and
> resubmitting it with the changes."
> 
This reminds me of the procedures in the german Wikipedia chapter concerning 
the deletion of articles. In order to implement your approach we need clear 
rules for
a) the formal requirements for a proposal: what is a valid proposal?
b) the personal requirements for a proposal: is the proponent entitled to 
this proposal?
c) the requirements with regards to content: is this proposal relevant?
d) the requirements with regards to wording: is the wording clear and 
unambiguous?
When all these points check ok then, and only then, the proposal can be 
accepted and be put to discussion.
Hence, first of all we'd have to develop a catalogue of criteria: what makes 
a proposal valid, what is relevance, etc. [ot]Which can lead to funny 
results: on de.wikipedia.org tram lines for instance are irrelevant, but 
light rail stops aren't. Reading wikipedia criteria for relevance can be 
quite amusing from time to time. It helps understand how some people tick. 
;-)[/ot]

> A flow chart outlining this procedure is here: 
> http://i.imgur.com/sWIECRI.png
Ahem... did you really intend to say that an incomplete or unsufficiently 
executable proposal can be voted upon if the motion to table it has failed? 

--Martin
-- 
The only cure to the evils of Democracy is more Democracy.
http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/images/fword.mp3