1,183
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: + + Line 47:
Line 49: + Line 60:
Line 63: + + Line 80:
Line 85: + + + +
→pointless or dangerous
== pointless or dangerous ==
== pointless or dangerous ==
:Most of this section was written by [[User:CarlFK]]. There's a lot in here to dispute, so I'm going to inline most of my comments. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)
I think this "auto propose a vote" thing is bad.
I think this "auto propose a vote" thing is bad.
It does not do anything good for the space. There is no trade this for that for a net gain. There is a cost (the voting process), there is no gain, so the ROI is negative.
It does not do anything good for the space. There is no trade this for that for a net gain. There is a cost (the voting process), there is no gain, so the ROI is negative.
:It does a lot of good for the space. The ultimate stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP are the members. As such, the members decide the direction of the organization. If you think that the voting process is a "cost" and is "annoying", then you should probably make yourself a non-voting member. Those of us who actually have an interest in the running of the space want to vote on things. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)
(bare with the 2 levels of voting here. We are voting on how to vote, so the word vote doesn't always reference the same thing.)
(bare with the 2 levels of voting here. We are voting on how to vote, so the word vote doesn't always reference the same thing.)
(2) If the vote does not pass, the policy is no longer in effect. This leaves PS1 in an undefined state that is probably bad. In the case of any of the 3 pseudo policies, PS1 no longer has insurance (or something that is essentially that.)
(2) If the vote does not pass, the policy is no longer in effect. This leaves PS1 in an undefined state that is probably bad. In the case of any of the 3 pseudo policies, PS1 no longer has insurance (or something that is essentially that.)
:I think there's some weasely arguments that people have been making about this whole insurance thing. To be sure, I really, highly doubt that the insurance company would be allowed to simply drop coverage that we have been paying for just because we don't have a policy in place. If so, they would have dropped our coverage a long time ago. More likely if something happened, for example someone got bitten by a dog that should not have been allowed in the space, our policy wouldn't cover any damages brought before Pumping Station: One. To be sure this would be a bad thing, but it's not so ephemeral and fear mongering as the whole "they'll drop our coverage!" line we've been getting. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)
(B) Proposed vote does not pass
(B) Proposed vote does not pass
If that 0 event happens, we currently don't know what state that will leave things in.
If that 0 event happens, we currently don't know what state that will leave things in.
I suspect there is a good chance it leaves us in a bad state and PS1 just shot itself in the foot.
I suspect there is a good chance it leaves us in a bad state and PS1 just shot itself in the foot.
:Again, if you don't like voting, and think it's "annoying", you can make yourself a non-voting member. Most of us who do vote do not think voting on policies is annoying and want to have a say in it. Whether or not we have these policies does not affect our obligation to the law or the insurance company. We don't need to make a policy that says "Don't murder people" because that's already illegal. The membership already agreed to enter into the contract with the insurance company when we bought the policy, therefore the membership already agreed to comply with it. The board really only needed to inform the membership of what was already agreed on. It's sort of a moot point anyways though because the point of this vote is not to figure out our insurance liabilities but to reaffirm the limits of the board's powers. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)
We currently have the ability to shot ourselves, so passing this vote dose not give anyone any more abilities.
We currently have the ability to shot ourselves, so passing this vote dose not give anyone any more abilities.
:To that I say, sure. The membership does have the ability to shoot itself in the foot, and that's okay. I believe that we won't because the membership is not as stupid and untrustworthy as people are trying to make us out as. Nothing that happens here suddenly gives us the right to do things that are illegal, and as the stakeholders in the organization, the members (we) are going to do everything in our power to do good things for the organization. We will not shoot ourselves in the foot. We're really not that dumb, I promise. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)
== Opinion that pseudo-policies are not valid is incorrect ==
== Opinion that pseudo-policies are not valid is incorrect ==