VirusWiki - View Source: WorkInVoting

You are viewing an old revision of this page. View the current version.
[WikiPageStatus]:[WorkInVoting]

!!!Page Currently Awaiting the Result of a Vote

[WorkInProgress]
----
A potential official document of the [Church of Virus|ChurchOfVirus] where a draft has been completed and has been submitted to the membership for approval by a [vote|WikiVote] on the [Virian Voting Page|http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=voteIndex] which includes a link to the wikipage in question, or

An official document of the [Church of Virus|ChurchOfVirus] approved by [affirmation|WikiAccepted] by the [Virian Council|VirianCouncil] challenged by any [VirianVector], by establishing a vote on the [Virian Voting Page|http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=voteIndex] which includes a link to the wikipage in question, or

A potential official document of the [Church of Virus|ChurchOfVirus], [rejected|WikiRejected] by the [Virian Council|VirianCouncil] where the rejection is challenged by any [VirianVector] by establishing a vote (60% quorum:simple majority vote) on the [Virian Voting Page|http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=voteIndex] which includes a link to the wikipage in question.

Once a 60% quorum is reached in such a vote, the vote shall be tallied, and the document's status shall become either [WikiAccepted] or [WikiRejected].
----
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.
----
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.

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?
----
<?plugin BackLinks?>
discuss this page on the BBS