Hi all, In a very rare intervention, as architect of these changes to the Bylaws, I would say that the point of them is that we no longer need "pre-ballots" (unless perhaps the proposer does not yet have two endorsers and so also does not have a ballot number) and also no longer define the length of "discussion periods" up front. The way I anticipated it working was:
* Proposer posts ballot, with number and two endorsers. * People discuss as necessary, with no explicit time limit. They take the time to craft the ballot into the right form, however long that is. * Ballot is updated as appropriate as we go along (large or small) by the proposer posting new versions with a distinguishing version number. * If no new version is posted for 21 days, ballot (and ballot number) expire. Any further effort to pass the measure means you start again. * Otherwise, at any point when 7 days have elapsed without a new ballot version being posted (i.e. the ballot is considered 'stable' by the proposer) they can start the 7-day vote by posting the final ballot form (which must be identical to the last version discussed) with a clear notice to that effect. * If people feel it's still under-discussed or not the way they want it yet, they can vote No. It's up to the proposer to judge the mood of the group as to when they call a vote. The meta-goal was to prevent all sorts of faffing with dates and periods for discussion. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
