254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Vote on 3 Policy Labels (view source)
Revision as of 06:04, 25 April 2015
, 06:04, 25 April 2015→pointless or dangerous: new section
"expires 3 weeks after being voted on" does not specify that the board of directors voted on it versus membership voting on it. skm
"expires 3 weeks after being voted on" does not specify that the board of directors voted on it versus membership voting on it. skm
== pointless or dangerous ==
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.
(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.)
There is a 2x2 grid of choices made up of (this proposed vote (A)pass, (B)not pass) x (members (1)agree, (2)disagree)
A1, A2, B1, B2.
(A) Assume this proposed vote passes and now the members have to vote on all policies voted on and passed by the BoD.
There are two possible outcomes of such votes: pass or not pass. (not meeting quorum just delays the outcome.)
(1) If the vote passes, nothing changes. The existing policy is still in affect.
(2) If the vote does not pass, the policy is no longer in effect.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.)
(B) Proposed vote does not pass
(1) the board did stuff, the members keep hacking.
(2) Someone doesn't like what the board did. they propose a vote of something different. The members vote on it.
B2 is really a subset of our current process: Someone wants something that requires a vote and follows the existing procedure.
A1 - voting paperwork
A2 - voting paperwork and possibly undesirable
B1 - no paperwork
B2 - voting paperwork and probably desirable but maybe undesirable because evil future members.
My Summary: all this really does is force the membership to vote and pass more things. That is annoying work.
There will also be debates on what is and isn't a policy that needs to be voted on, not because anyone want's to over turn it, but we want to follow this rule we put in place.
I think the chance of the members revoking a policy is basically 0.
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.
We currently have the ability to shot ourselves, so passing this vote dose not give anyone any more abilities.