|
Originally Posted by tcook052
(Post 24178785)
And how would you compel public participation of TB members without changes to TB guidelines creating more bureaucracy?
OT but one of the recent TB members who participated only very rarely was elected and then re-elected (probably more than once) with reasonably high numbers of votes. Obviously some people on FT liked the guy and wanted him as their elected representative. [When I have time, I should check whether he participated in the election debates when he was running for TB. Often there's a question about whether one participates in the TBT forum.] |
Well I for one am pleased to see this motion appearing before talkboard as I genuinely do believe that it is a good thing.
|
It's been 48 hours now.
|
why just 2 days?
-David |
Originally Posted by LIH Prem
(Post 24183533)
why just 2 days?
-David Cheers. |
Originally Posted by LIH Prem
(Post 24183533)
why just 2 days?
-David |
Here's what I posted in the private TB forum:
I don't believe the current rules need to be changed. However I plan to vote Yes on this proposal. My reason: koko has done an exemplary job of patiently finding a consensus that is not too far from my preferred position. That's something I want to encourage from future advocates on all issues. Feel free to argue me out of this, but it makes perfect sense to me. |
Amend the TalkBoard guidelines for timelag: will pass
In accordance with the guidelines that we'll announce if a motion has passed or failed once enough yes or no votes have been recorded by TB members, this is the public notice that this motion will pass as it has secured at least 6 yes votes.
Please note that not all TB members have voted yet, and so a final announcement with who voted yes/no will not be posted until all 9 have voted or the voting period ends. |
Yay! Thanks Jason.
|
For the record record ;), here is what I wrote in the private TB forum regarding my vote:
For the record, although I voted for the compromise, I tend to agree with [the notion that this motion is not needed]. We never had a problem in the past because everyone took their time to vote. Lesson learned. That said, although this complicates the process a tiny bit, it probably is a best practice and so it does no harm to enforce it. Which is to say, I will shed nary a tear should this compromise fall. After all, most accidents occur in the middle of the road! :) |
And this is what I wrote:
Because I don't think it's necessary. The outcry against our quick vote is by a vocal minority that is directing their anger at the change to the MR Forum at us because we're a convenient target. It's misplaced and flat out wrong I think, especially as I think that was an aberration and is unlikely to continue. As it is, votes drag out needlessly long and I don't want to delay our constituents having to wait to use their new forums even longer. Finally, I think that since the uproar over the MR Forum we've been moving together far slower and more cautiously making every effort to get a consensus before moving ahead with a vote. Why add even more bureaucracy? To put it in law terms, I don't think there is a problem, but if there is a problem, I think we've already solved it by being more conscientious than we were. |
Well done! Thank you TB.^
|
Originally Posted by CMK10
(Post 24209755)
And this is what I wrote:
|
Originally Posted by kipper
(Post 24210405)
This just means that TB must be conscientious to prevent problems, as now it is mandated, rather than an unspoken/unrecognized "idea" and suggestion.
You'll notice that we are still waiting on this vote to finish, the person who seconded the vote, who wanted it to be a 3 day waiting period, not 2, who has been active on FT during the vote still has not voted. We succeeded in adding needless bureaucracy and creating a longer wait and nothing more. |
Originally Posted by CMK10
(Post 24210485)
It's not mandated that we have to be conscientious, what's mandated is that we have to wait two days to start voting. As I say frequently, length of time spent before voting has nothing to do with the quality of one's vote.
You'll notice that we are still waiting on this vote to finish, the person who seconded the vote, who wanted it to be a 3 day waiting period, not 2, who has been active on FT during the vote still has not voted. We succeeded in adding needless bureaucracy and creating a longer wait and nothing more. Is there a reason to push voting for something, unless it is to correct a mistake TB has made or to eliminate unintended consequences? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:55 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.