Re: P1788: PLEASE VOTE
> From: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "<rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: P1788: PLEASE VOTE
> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 00:43:47 +0000
>
> Baker and all,
>
> On Oct 7, 2010, at 7:12 PM, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
>
> > . . .
>
> > Where inconsistencies occur, I'll assume
> > that the motion passed latest (if not simultaneous) supersedes
> > the earlier motion.
> I agree with that interpretation. We surely want to be
> able to change our collective minds. However, as Arnold
> has pointed out, a consequence of that is that nothing
> is ever really decided, and we might never move from
> square one.
Arnold is correct in that participatory democracies
take long enough to decide what to eat for lunch
that its cold by the time you get it.
But he is wrong in that, even collectively, we get
hungry enough to agree sooner or later.
>
> In my opinion, this electronic meeting has become confusing.
> In a face-to-face meeting, there is only one motion on the
> floor at a time. That is too slow for an electronic meeting,
> but I do not even know how many motions are in various states
> of proposal/discussion/motion right now, and I am trying to
> pay attention daily.
>
> In my opinion, we need (acting) Chair and Technical Editors
> to take a more aggressive role in aggregating various
> proposals/motions into more coherent alternatives. Perhaps,
> instead of advancing four inconsistent motions, someone should
> form ONE motion with several alternative paragraphs (or several
> sets of several alternatives). Instead of voting Yes/No, we
> would vote {1: A | B | C}; {2: A | B}; etc.
The first part of this suggestion might help.
However, let me advise that you work out any
multiple alternatives BEFORE the vote. My
experience is that offering more than 2 voting
alternatives is a guarentee that none will
get a majority. And winnowing them down by
some rule takes time & leads to arguments
about the voting rules.
>
> Ideally, the "someone" is the union of the proposers of the
> inconsistent motions, but it may need to be someone else.
Well, as the union of proposers will almost
NEVER support any alternative other than
their own, I would say that, pragmatically,
it will definitely need to be someone else. :-)
>
> Whatever, I think a wiki (or similar) MIGHT help organized
> the discussions.
>
> > . . .
>
> Dr. George F. Corliss
Remember Otto von Bismarck's observation about
laws & sausages. It is not the law that is bad.
It is that you are in a position to see it made
that sickens you.
Dan