@@ -15,17 +15,21 @@ WikiObjection: We should use the same closing rules as for other votes, 60% quorum *and* decisive, not 60% alone. --DavidLucifer
[VectorHermit] I just looked at "VirianVoting and WikiVote and didn't see a reference to "decisiveness". Can you point me in the right direction?
-[VectorHermit] In any case, this format describes a simple majority of the 60% quorum (and we have already determined that the 60% is made up of only Ayes and Nayes, not abstains). The only iffy circumsance is a "balanced" outcome which is not decisive. I suggest that the "Principle of Conservation" suggests that we should retain an old document or not approve a new document, although an alternative approach would be to give the [PrimeVector|VirianPrimeVector] an ex-officio casting super-vote (ie a vote in addition to a personal vote which may previously have been cast). Whichever the case, we should add the decision to the Virian Voting page before establishing the vote on accepting it. I've left this at a simple majority, although Robert's makes the making of a motion to retract an already passed motion require 2/3 support to be affirmed, on the grounds that anything that doesn't have sufficient support to attract 50% of the the vote probably has other flaws which should be addressed.
+[VectorHermit] In any case, this format describes a simple majority of the 60% quorum (and we have already determined that the 60% is made up of only Ayes and Nayes, not abstains). The only iffy circumsance is a "balanced" outcome which is not decisive. I suggest that the "Principle of Conservation" suggests that we should retain an old document or not approve a new document, although an alternative approach would be to give the [PrimeVector|VirianPrimeVector] an ex-officio casting super-vote (ie a vote in addition to a personal vote which may previously have been cast). The current situation as prescribed under [WikiVote] is that a majority would not be reached for replacement and the motion to replace would fail
. Whichever the case, we should add the decision to the Virian Voting page before establishing the vote on accepting it. I've left this at a simple majority, although Robert's makes the making of a motion to retract an already passed motion require 2/3 support to be affirmed, on the grounds that anything that doesn't have sufficient support to attract 50% of the the vote probably has other flaws which should be addressed.
----
Once an official document of the [Church of Virus|ChurchOfVirus] has been [accepted by a vote|WikiAccepted] or [rejected by a vote|WikiRejected], it may only be challenged by a [VirianVector] establishing an alternative document or documents and then establishing a poll (60% quorum:simple majority vote) on the [Virian Voting Page|http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=voteIndex] which includes links to the wikipages in question.
----
Question: why a poll instead of a vote? --DavidLucifer
-[VectorHermit] Because, as documented above, rather than a simple motion, the poll presents two
choices. "Prefer
the existing page
<LINK
>" or "Replace
the existing page by
<LINK
>"
. I do not object to the use of
the word "vote" here. Neither would
I object to making it explicit that the conditions of [VirianVoting] and [WikiVote] apply (which they do). If this edit would resolve your objection, please do so, or indicate affirmation here and I'll do it.
+[VectorHermit] Because, as documented above and on the [WikiVote] page
, rather than a simple motion, the poll presents three
choices.
+* An Affirmation Option for
the Existing Page, e.g. I support retaining
<this
> Existing Document/Policy
+* An Affirmation Option for
the Proposed Page, e.g. I support adopting
<this
> Replacement Document/Policy
+* A Rejection Option, e.g
. I reject
the existing and proposed document(s)/Policy(ies)
+I would not
object to making it explicit that the conditions of [VirianVoting] and [WikiVote] apply (which they do). If this edit would resolve your objection, please do so, or indicate affirmation here and I'll do it.
Question: Also, this seems to preclude voting to repeal something already passed. Why? --DavidLucifer
-[VectorHermit] Not at all. The alternate page could contain "We no longer agree with the policy found at <LINK> and its status should be changed to WikiRejected for the following reasons." Should that page reach the required level of support, the previously authoritive page would be struck. Does this remove the objection or would you prefer to add something more explicit?
+[VectorHermit] Not at all. The alternate page could contain "We no longer agree with the policy found at <LINK> and its status should be changed to WikiRejected for the following reasons." Should that page reach the required level of support, the previously authoritive page would be struck. In the event that a majority sought to strike both the existing and the new page, both pages would be [WikiRejected]
. Does this remove the objection or would you prefer to add something more explicit?
----
<?plugin BackLinks?>
