Under this proposal we would return to the letter of our by-laws. Voting processes listed in the proposal would be used during proposals. Steve's proposal process would be superseded for proposals.
Michael, I too like the idea of returning to a simple, transparent, and easy to understand system to improve SynHak. Lets get started! On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Michael Griesacker <mgriesac...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 <just...@gmail.com> 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 >> Discuss@synhak.org >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@synhak.org > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
