Forum Talk:Governance/Archive 2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Pages: Content • Governance and Policy • Style • Management • Technical Issues • Requests for Help • Competitors and Press • Archived Boards
imported>John Stephenson (→Tentative thought about how to handle motions: timescale; on-wiki voting) |
imported>Peter Jackson |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::Maybe we'd want to distinguish different types of motions. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC) | ::Maybe we'd want to distinguish different types of motions. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC) | ||
:I think it depends on who turns up. If there is a clear consensus or no objections, the proposer should be able to get on and do it as long as sufficient time has elapsed for people to make their views known. The two or three weeks Anthony suggests seem about right. Also, we could simply have votes, if needed, on the wiki, unless there is a call for anonymity. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC) | :I think it depends on who turns up. If there is a clear consensus or no objections, the proposer should be able to get on and do it as long as sufficient time has elapsed for people to make their views known. The two or three weeks Anthony suggests seem about right. Also, we could simply have votes, if needed, on the wiki, unless there is a call for anonymity. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC) | ||
::Our new basic policy document says it can be amended only by 2/3 vote. Maybe less fundamental changes should be easier. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 09:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:49, 29 November 2016
| Help system | All recent posts | Back to top | Contact Administrators | Archives |
|
Governance issues Discussion about issues regarding or specifically affecting how the project, its policies or any official positions work | ||||
Archives
none
Tentative thought about how to handle motions
Any member can propose a motion and two weeks can be allowed for discussion and possible editing. A one-week call can be put forward to find out how many members would be willing to vote on that motion. If 2/3 of the members who were active in the six months prior to one month before the motion was submitted indicated their willingness to vote on the motion, BallotBin can count the votes of that group. The motion passes if 2/3 of the voters vote yes if and only if 2/3 of the members who agreed to vote did so. Otherwise the motion fails. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable enough to me.Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Have to think about that, but I suspect RationalWiki would consider it excessively bureaucratic.
- Maybe we'd want to distinguish different types of motions. Peter Jackson (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think it depends on who turns up. If there is a clear consensus or no objections, the proposer should be able to get on and do it as long as sufficient time has elapsed for people to make their views known. The two or three weeks Anthony suggests seem about right. Also, we could simply have votes, if needed, on the wiki, unless there is a call for anonymity. John Stephenson (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Our new basic policy document says it can be amended only by 2/3 vote. Maybe less fundamental changes should be easier. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)