Re: [s-d] [s-b] purchases, turnings

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 5, 2008 11:25 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Can I ask why? I've been considering proposing multiple voting periods
> each nweek because 1) I think 12 days ends up being too long between
> rule-changes and 2) It leads to massive ballots which are a PITA both
> for the ministers involved and the voters.
>

Timing can be too fast. A proposal can be submitted, revised, and committed
to a vote all within the span of hours without a chance for review. To be
honest, I'm not a fan of hurried proposals anyway. I think the scope of
proposals that need to be hurried is very small--most can wait until the
regular voting period and anything that is urgent enough for a quick fix
will likely result in an emergency anyway.

Now, I would like having two voting periods in an nweek mainly for what you
listed as reason 2. Reason 3: It would be easier to understand the
implemented changes. Right now, so many modifications are happening in a
huge chunk that I'm having trouble keeping up. As long as it happens at well
defined and regular intervals, I don't have a problem with it. We have two
clock stoppages an nweek anyway, might as well distribute ballots and tally
votes at each stoppage. Break the nweek into two 6-nday segments. ndays 7-12
can be the nweekend.

This would be a major change and making sure there are no unintended
side-effects might be more difficult than it sounds. I also depend on
nomicbot telling me what to do--he would have to be changed. Do a straw poll
to see if there would be enough support for it to see if it would be worth
spending the time to draft up the proposal.

- Hose
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss