Helmut, sigh. Getting agreement on anything in this organization, even a voting procedure, is a major accomplishment. In my mind, what the informal vote is on is simply whether it is worth taking a formal vote. Why throw away an established and binding voting procedure (which is all the Contstitution really is) in favor of something else when the scope of this decision is this big? Taking this vote as prescribed by the Constitution adds two important properties: * It is binding. Once the vote is taken and it is valid, it can't be undone except by another vote. * People can't claim it is invalid, and therefore take away from the power we are trying to give our interim President. I don't want to undermine the President's authority from the very start. My vote is +1. I just want us to do it the right way. Regards, Avery J. Regier > -----Original Message----- > From: DearWebby [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:09 PM > To: Regier Avery J > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: [JOS] (no subject) > > Regier, we won't blame you for the constitution that did not work, > if you stop mentioning it. > > Let's try not to to handicap the revolution with mistakes of the past. > Once we get the truck unstuck and out of the mud, and get some > momentum again, then some effort could be diverted towards stuff like > researching which parts of the old constitution can be salvaged and > upgraded, and which parts should be quietly flushed. > > For now though, please don't invalidate YOUR vote for the voting in > progress > by attaching conditions to YOUR vote. You can only vote +1, 0, -1, not > +11/16th. It's all metric now ;-) > > Helmut > > At 06:58 AM 9/20/00, Regier Avery J wrote: > >As I was instrumental in getting our Constitution set up, I have a > certain > >feeling that we shouldn't try to contravent it so easily. It was set up > so > >that there is a clear procedure for settling disagreements and ratifying > >binding decisions. Such a drastic change as this, should at least > >reasonably abide by the Constitution. > > > >According to the Constitution, the minimum that we could have an elected > >President would be 17 days. 7 days to advertise the vote and 10 days for > >the actual voting to take place. That is if we define this as an > 'ordinary' > >vote that doesn't change the Constitution. This will settle point 1 > below. > >We can then figure out how we want to change the Constitution to set up > the > >'cabal'. That vote will require 14+20 days. > > > >The biggest problem with such a vote are points 4.10-12 of the > Constitution. > >They state that there can only be three possible votes: yes, no, and > >neither. > > > >In order to reasonably keep this vote within the Constitution, I propose > to > >word the vote as follows: > > The JOS Project shall be led by a President. The President > shall > >have the power to: [whatever powers we wish to grant] > > Please vote [yes/no/neither]: > > > > Reason for Neither vote: > > > > > > If this vote passes with a 'yes' vote, I elect the following > person > >to the position of President: > > A> Iain > > B> Someone else. > > C> etc. > > > >The nominations for President can take place on the vote-info list during > >the 7 day advertisement period. > > > >In order for this to happen, we need a neutral administrator of the vote, > a > >person to propose the vote, and a seconder. All of the above people need > to > >be members of the vote-info list. If we figure out what powers the > >President should have, we can start the procedure immediately and have a > >President within 20 or so days. > > > >What is above is the qualification on my +1. > > > >Regards, > >Avery J. Regier > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Al [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 5:04 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [JOS] JOS President > > > > +1 as well > > > > > > I don't really mind who will be the president (as long as he is > from > > this list and contributes, and we all know who are the people > that > > contribute - and if not, we can run a statistical analysis on > the > > archives of the list). Also, if there will be a group that has > >control > > over JOS, I would be interested in the responsibility myself > (but > >not > > president or anything close to as high). > > > > > > May I point out a few things that I think we should do? > > > > > > 1) Find a procedure that will enable us in the immediate future > > (something like, say, two weeks?) to select who will be the > ultimate > > ruler of JOS right now. > > > > 2) Find a procedure that will enable us in the near future (how > >about > > two months?) to select a team that will be the rulers of JOS. > > > > 3) Use this team to establish JOS policy in all aspects. > > > > 4) Create an all new web site for JOS. > > > > 5) For groups, delegate works and start producing and > integrating. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." > > - William Shakespeare > > > >________________________________________________________________________ > > [MAIL: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [URL: > >http://www.outworld.org/people/al/] > > [TEL1: (30) +31 422392] [TEL2: (30) +31 428154] [CELL: (30) +937 > >110247] > > [ICQ#: 11876955] [DSS: 0xDBEF8ECC] [RSA: 0xBC469499] [TIME: GMT > >+2.00 H] > > [ADDRESS: 14 Argonafton St., Kalamaria, 551 31, Thessaloniki, > Greece > >GR] > > DO NOT SEND ME ANY UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL, POLITICAL OR > RELIGIOUS > >E-MAIL > > > > _______________________________________________ > > General maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >General maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > Dear Webby > Helmut Morscher, President of Webby, Inc > High traffic marketing at it's best. > Have Fun and the people will come ! > http://webby.com http://mypostcards.com http://posty.com > _______________________________________________ General maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/general
