From: annie@ivgate.omahug.org
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 14:20:35 CST
>Firstly Annie, thanks for the work with getting this issue brought up and
>secondly moderating the whole 'she'bang.
Thanks. I do feel somewhat responsible for not noticing this earlier,
but I know I did my due dilligence when the dates were proposed last
summer. It was indeed a surprise to me when I found out.
>1. If we decide to reconsider new dates that the current dates are
>automatically nominated as a possibility.
I would say that they are nominated if somebody (such as you) decides to
nominate them. :)
I don't see them being automatically excluded or included, but I don't
get the feeling they would get that many votes.
>2. That a list of alternative possible dates is agreed before we vote to
>reconsider.
I see the motion to reconsider and review and a motion/vote on new dates
to be entirely separate items. If our current motion to review fails,
then there's no need to continue the discussion of new timeframes.
>3. Clearly the vote to reconsider needs 2/3 rds majority but are we then
>going to have a simple majority based vote for the alternatives as per
>normal? If only two or three dates are placed in nomination then I see no
>problem but if there's more then I do see to much dispersion occurring over
>a range of dates (or at least a reasonable possibility that this would
>happen). I therefore propose that we CAN ONLY CONSIDER TWO other weeks along
>with current week in the revote...should it be required.
The way I interpret the intent of the standing rule we made 2 years ago,
ANYTHING that dorks around with the schedule by more than 3 days requires
2/3 majority to pass. A vote on one out of N sets of dates would therefore
need 2/3 to be adopted.
I don't see how we can exclude any good faith nomination of a new timeframe
from consideration. If we have more than 2 candidate timeframes and none
of them gets 2/3, we can either have a run-off if two are close in number
or a yea/nea on the highest if one is clearly the favorite. In any case,
we do need a 2/3 to finalize things, the way I interpret the rules.
>I am making these proposals as a way to ensure that any post vote bitching
>is limited because everybody knows/knew about the entire process.
Bitching is the one thing I want to avoid here.
I think that if we do things methodically and follow what we've agreed upon
in the past to do, nobody has any legitimate gripe.
Since 2/3 majority is required for a reschedule, there's no way anybody can
say that the result was not clearly what the Org group wanted.
I'm also trying to be sure we consider all of the previous stumbling blocks
such as Easter and the Laughlin River Run.
Now if somebody wants to bitch just to hear themself bitching, well I can't
do too much about that. :)
>My position on all of this is:
>1. We should vote to reconsider
I agree. I don't think the current timeframe will work. :(
>2. Don't care what week as long as its between April 8th and May 27th. June
>is definitely tempting fate with the weather and anything earlier is
>problematic for me to get to.
I forsee only one problem week for me, as I've stated. I would prefer if we
keep DLV within the April-May boundaries.
>3. N+I is a factor (for me personally) but not a deciding factor in coming
>to DLV
It may be for me, but this is not my year to attend, even though I may end up
going, and if I don't I may be stuck minding the store that week.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 06 2006 - 16:16:52 CDT