Subject: Re: [on_discussion] NOMIC

From: Matthew Keppel <mattkeppel@y...>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:26:20 -0800 (PST)

More inane ramblings...

I'm glad my Historian proposal passed, but as I
mentioned before it is merely a starting point towards
a better means. I'd like to open the floor to
potential ammendments. Also, since the propal passed
with the minimum 2/3 votes, the Speaker's consent
became a non issue. Nonetheless, I'd like to here
Chuck's suggestions on the matter. As the only
Speaker we've had, he's got the best insight.

Of the 3 proposals I submitted, the automatic vote
proposal was the one I personally thought was least
likely to get voted down. Funny how these things work
out. I still think it was essentially a good
proposal, so I'd like feedback as to what was wrong
with it and how it could have been improved. Was it
really that bad, or were you all just trying to score
points off me? :)

On the surface, I have nothing against Scott's
latest proposals. However, I'm not sure if the
Speaker should have that much power. Granted, this
isn't much a concern with our current crop of players,
but if we ever plan on expanding, like Chuck
previously suggested, then this may be a concern. 

You must me sick, Chuck. I've never heard of March
"22TH" :)

That's all for now!

Matt

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

---

From: "Scott Morgan" <jands1@f...>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:13 -0000

Hi All,
Just wanted to briefly respond to a couple of Matt's points. I had
stated last week why I voted the auto vote proposal down, but here is
an example. I too am not entirely convinced that the Speaker should
have as much power as the two proposals I submitted would allow.
However, I thought they were important topics that deserved a vote.
As a result, I may in the end vote down one or both if someone's
argument convinces me that I should. Therefore, I wouldn't want it to
be the case that I had to automatically have voted "yes" in order to
offer them to the group. Personally, it would probably reduce the
number of proposals I would submit if Matt's auto vote proposal had
passed. Just my thought...

As to my two proposals, I am strongly in favor of the Speaker being
allowed to submit proposals. This will allow Chuck and future
Speakers to get their agenda moving. As evidenced by the fact that
everyone missed Chuck's first request on just posting proposals to
the Web, I think the ability to put more pressing issues up for a
vote is crucial. As to the Speaker being considered a voter, I am on
the fence on my own proposal. I have the feeling that others may have
reasons to vote "no" that I haven't thought of, such as Matt's good
point about new players. For myself, I don't think it would be a
serious conflict of interest or cause too much trouble, but I'd like
to hear what y'all think.

Nomic-ly yours,
Scott