from Wikipedia: A *filibuster* is a parliamentary procedure<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure>where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal. It is sometimes referred to as *talking out a bill*,[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-1> and characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature>or other decision-making body.
so, is this to supersede Steve's proposal process? I see no mention of blocking, which I don't think I really understood anyways, seemed like just a more overt form of filibustering. Not against dropping that usage, I just want to make sure I understand. -also, this seems pretty simple and easy to understand. I like simple.... On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Justin Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > Issue being resolved: > > As SynHak has grown larger, SynHak has undergone some growing pains. > Valuable individuals have come and been scared off by our elaborate > procedures and processes. Browbeating has become all too common. When > motions with members are seconded and modified voting has occurred > decisions have been able to be made without long fruitless tirades. > > A clear proposal and decision making strategy would help us avoid 3 hour > meetings where everyone feels like they went though a battle. Voting treats > all members present at the meeting and members who announce a proxy before > meetings to have an equal voice. In addition voting will allow us to move > forward and return to the meetings of the past. Our meetings could be quick > and productive, instead of long and tiresome. It will curb grandstanding, > soap-boxing, meandering of topics, and filibustering. IMO discussion is > vital to hash out ideas but not all discussion needs to occur during public > meetings. In addition voting does not need to be used at all times. > > <example: A member motions to close the meeting, someone seconds it. No > one speaks up for opposition. The motion passes.) (2nd example: A proposal > is presented do do X.Y.Z. A discussion occurs. During the discussion > members and non members voice their opinions. Some members agree with the > proposal while others don't. A member calls for a vote. A verbal vote of > the members in good standing and their selected proxy. A majority of more > than 50% of the total votes cast and the proposal passes, 50% (or less) and > the proposal fails with the option to be resubmitted and reapplied later.> > > > Proposal: > SynHak will follow the organization's by-laws, and use discussion and if > necessary, voting of the members present, in good standing, at the > membership meeting (including proxies) to handle all proposals that public > meeting discussion has show to have opposing voices. Any member can call > for a silent ballot but verbal ballots will be the default. For a proposal > to pass, more than 50% of the votes cast must agree with the proposal. > > > Submitted By: Justin Herman > Proposal Endorsed by: Devin Wolfe & Chris Neer > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
