Talk:Consensus

From MediaWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Hi members, in paragraph one of Consensus page, the Voting section, what is meant by the phrase "...all those entitled to vote, if they had been present,...(special resolution)...unless otherwise required by the Coop act"? I'm confused about what the difference is between voters being present for a resolution, or what if they are not, but they are entitled to be according to the Coop act? This language is quite legalese to me, could someone please explain? Shan 14:34, 29 January 2006 (PST)

The difference between ordinary resolution and special resolution is basically the number of people who are required to take part in the decision. I believe The Cooperative Association Act says something like simple majority of a quorum for an ordinary resolution and something like 4/5ths of all members for a special resolution. The Cooperative Association Act defines which situations require one type or the other.
In keeping with the spirit of The Cooperative Association Act, I defined ordinary resolution as requiring consensus among all those present at a meeting, assuming all who had an interest in the resolution had been notified of it so they could either be present, or request that it me moved to a meeting where they could be present.
In keeping with the spirit of The Cooperative Association Act, I defined special resolution as requiring consensus of all members, not simply those present. This might require power of attorney of members who absolutely cannot make a meeting, or proxy "consent" or "consent with concerns" agreement. (Proxy "veto" is specifically disallowed.) This might be used for things like adding new members or involuntary expulsion, which I assume all members would want a say on! The Cooperative Association Act also calls out a few specific cases where a special resolution is required. --Jan Steinman 15:35, 29 January 2006 (PST)
Thanks Jan, this is more clear to me Shan 16:09, 29 January 2006 (PST)


Hi members, this was number 4 in the Consensus page under Voting, and I strongly urge us all to re-read it and modify the wording. It seems to be saying (to my understanding) that if the majority of voters on an original failed resolution ARE NOT PRESENT at the time of voting on an alternative resolution (to the same problem), then those parties who ARE INDEEDD PRESENT at the alternative voting may proceed to RE-VOTE on the ORIGINAL resolution using consensus minus one. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS, if the body that ends up voting is lacking the majority of parties who were present to vote on the original resolution the first time around. Please, oh please, clarify this for me -- can we split it into two or three different points to get all things clear in here? Here is the phrasing in question:

If the alternative resolution fails to achieve unanimous consent by those duly notified and present, or if the dissenting parties fail to present an alternative, or if a majority of parties voting on the original resolution are not able to vote on the alternative resolution, the original resolution may be brought before the body again for unanimous minus one consent of those duly notified and present. Every effort must be made to include all those who voted on the original resolution, but there is no majority requirement in this caseThanks for help and discussion on this before ratifying the consensus page Shan 14:49, 29 January 2006 (PST)

We could simply say that if those conditions are not met, that the original resolution is deemed passed by consent minus one? That would simplify things, but may still not be acceptable.
I really feel a need for defining some mechanism to combat what I call the "Not thats!" That's a situation where one or more people block things, but present no alternatives, and possibly don't even show up to future meetings.
I TOTALLY agree with this. That is why I'm concerned that the phrasing is TOO confusing as stated currently. Here, I'll try a stab at re-doing it. Please let me know what you think before we edit the page itself...
If one of the following is true, then the original resolution may be brought before the body again (at a future date) for unanimous minus one consent of those duly notified and present
a) the alternative resolution fails to achieve unanimous consent by those duly notified and present, b) the dissenting parties fail to present an alternative, or c) a majority of parties voting on the original resolution are not able to vote on the alternative resolution.
If the original resolution is brought before the body a second time, every effort must be made to include all those who voted on the original resolution, but there is no majority requirement in this case. Note that this particular clause was created in the effort to avoid blocking or vetoing of resolutions, without the presentation of alternatives. Shan 16:09, 29 January 2006 (PST)
GREAT! I think these are good changes, and thanks for applying your "clarity and simplicity muscles" to something I obviously didn't explain very well! --Jan Steinman 16:34, 29 January 2006 (PST)
Perhaps this is overly pedantic, and our goal, of course, is to work hard to keep these exceptional circumstances from ever arising, but I have seen these situations come up in other groups, and it would be nice just to be able to "read the riot act" to anyone who was misbehaving. --Jan Steinman 15:35, 29 January 2006 (PST)

Hi members - I have a suggestion regarding the visual figure of the voting process. I would like to see a more positive wording on the part of the process that includes presenting the proposal, discussion and objections circular process. Suggestion: could we replace the word suggestions or even suggestions for improvement for objections?

Sounds great to me -- done! --Jan Steinman 15:35, 29 January 2006 (PST)

Also, My feeling is that this process needs to be emphasized as a step before the resolution is ever presented for a vote. Could the cycle of proposal - discussion - suggestions be arranged in the diagram as an iterative circle for step one, and somehow show that the proposal to resolution stage is step two (apart from the development of the proposal)? I would like our written process on this to guard against any notions that proposals need only be submitted to discussion about objections, instead of how to improve them, or that the discussion and improvement of the proposal could be skipped entirely in the effort to follow the right hand portion of the diagram. Thank you for your feedback on these three important areas (to me) Shan 14:56, 29 January 2006 (PST)

The diagram is only meant to be illustrative, not definitive, which is the job of the text. As such, I wanted it to be as simple as possible, and not get overly cluttered. We can certainly add as many intermediate "bubbles" as we want, but at some point, they detract from comprehension, no? --Jan Steinman 15:35, 29 January 2006 (PST)
Okay, I see what you are saying and I think that communication in group about this is the final word on it, since (as is the nature of abstract language) visual and textual descriptions are not final understandings and will always be subject to bias and perspective! I think the diagram works as is for now! THanks. Shan 16:09, 29 January 2006 (PST)
Feel free to take a stab at editing the diagram! "Show preview" will show you what happens without having to save it. There's a mini-tutorial of sorts at Test:Graphviz The basics are pretty easy. --Jan Steinman 16:34, 29 January 2006 (PST)

Share your opinion


blog comments powered by Disqus
Personal tools
Get our newsletter!
Name:
Email Address:

disturbance
entry points
help (off site)
Environmental jobs, green volunteering, good work! Powered by the wind! This server and other
EcoReality operations
are 100% wind powered.
Powered by Mac OS X Powered by Mac MediaWiki Powered by MariaDB Powered by Valentina Studio Pro