You can add me to those who endorse this
--- Original Message ---
From: "Michael Griesacker" <[email protected]>
Sent: May 14, 2014 11:11 AM
To: "SYN/HAK discussion list" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.
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
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
