[pp.int.general] Our votes, and our problem with amendment 3 having been annulled
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Fri Nov 21 23:12:13 CET 2008
Hope nobody complains about my long mail, as it's just the reply to another long mail -and think Ole deserves all his doubts to be replied-.
De: Ole Husgaard <pirat at sparre.dk>
Enviado: viernes, 21 de noviembre, 2008 19:49:23
> For the votings with more than 2 options, how do the voting rules work here? Maybe the required
> majority think that something has to be changed, but some may vote for option 2 and some for
> option 3.
One of the rules to be applied states the following: "supermajorities: for each amendment to become approved, at most two
pirate parties should reject that amendment; having three or more
pirate parties rejecting an amendment makes it become rejected"; while there would be some doubts regarding what does reject means within this context, the other rule -combined rule- clarifies this: "the combination of both requirements means that, being 11 eligible
voters, at least 9 should vote, at least 7 should support an amendmentand at most 2 should reject it to make it become approved"
So, amendments need at least 7 valid votes supporting them in order to be passed.
> Also, we have a huge problem with amendment 3 having been annulled on a technicality
No technicality:it was dropped by Jens the 6th of November. Ask Jens about it.
> and then refused to be reentered on another technicality.
40-hour-out-of-time proposal may be considered a technicality; however, we discussed it some days ago. It would have been great to hear your voice then, your viewpoint would have been largely welcomed when that issue was about to be decided.
> This is IMHO bad because I think there is general consensus that this change makes good sense.
> Without this change we may have a problem ratifying the final document.
I don't know the ground to consider there is general consenssus on it -i..e., achieving 7 or more votes for, and 2 or less votes against-; however, I repeat it was Jens who dropped 3rd Amendment, not me.
Also, from the date of Jens' dropping of 3rd Amendment (6th of November) and the date of amendments proposal's deadline (8th of November), you and any other people who may have considered unquestionable to propose and support that amendment had 48 hours, 2 days to step into the issue and say "hey, if Jens is going to drop it, I will rescue it". You didn't.
Regarding the blocking issue -i.e., "without this change we may have a problem ratifying the final document"-, and considering what I've just said -nobody rescued 3rd Amendment in spite of having enough time (it was only required to copy & paste it)-, after the voting window I will be quite keen to talk with you, and anybody thinking like you, about this blocking issue. I can in advance tell you that such Amendment is based in false premises -in spite of that, if may have been proposed anyway but ... Jens dropped it and nobody rescued it-.
> Amendment 5 +1
> This is a simple grammar correction. If this is not passed we have an interesting question: Should
> translations also have a grammar error here?
It was Jens who dropped the amendment, not me; so, it wasn't dropped because of being a grammar correction.
If you want to, and as long as they're not conceptual, semantic changes -they should have been done within the amending time window-, we can discuss whether to review Second Draft to correct orthographic & grammar mistakes.
> This was originally merging amendments 3 and 6, later changed to instead merge amendments 6
> and 18.
> We like the change in amendment 18, and it does not collide with the change in amendment 3.
Actually they collide:
- Third Amendment proposed the following, "the public's interest in promoting culture and the public's right to use published cultural works"; while Eighteenth Amendment proposed the following for the same part, "author's rights and citizens' rights on culture is necessary"
- 18th Amendment proposed the following, "but also to protect authors from being alienated anymore"; while EIghteenth Amendment proposed the following for the same part, "but to also restore authors theirs preventing them to be alienated anymore".
So they are not compatible as is, because the first contradicts the latter twice; you would may have been able to propose a -namely- 20th Amendmend merging both amendments -i.e., making both changes; the one proposed by the 3rd one, and the one proposed by the 18th one-, however, nobody done it.
> If this amendment is passed, the text "Anarchy is the ideal, and it is to this end that we do aspire
> and work." may cause PP DK to not ratify the final document.
It won't be passed, as there are actually four votes rejecting that text.
> This was originally merging amendments 1 and 8, later changed to instead merge amendments 8
> and 11 (we think, as we see conflicting data in the wiki).
Glad it was finally understandable.
> Amendment 10
> We have problems understanding this big and complex amendment changing several different
> We do not like the first change [...] like the second [...] do not like the third [...] do not like the
> fourth [...] like the fifth change
That was the reason for the fine-graining choice -i.e., allowing to modify only one paragraph per amendment, except if the modification of one paragraph affects any others-: if five heterogeneous changes are made altogether, it forces people to choose the whole pack or to reject the whole pack. Instead, if the mega-amendment is splitted into smaller pieces, people is up to choose those parts they prefer, and reject the rest.
> First Voting
> We vote FOR option 4: Amendments 3 and 18 passed. Alternatively, if this is not allowed, we vote
> FOR option 3: Amendment 18 passed.
There is no Option 4 within the enlisted options, only three available ones. So I guess you vote for Option Three.
> Second Voting
> The text here says "nineth amendment", but it looks like this is just the change in amendment 8.
There are three options:
- the original wording
- 8th Amendment's wording
- 9th Amendment's wording -maybe you aren't aware of it because 11th Amendment merely proposes to remove the entire paragraph, so there's no actual wording-.
Hope all your doubts have been solved; if you have more doubts feel free to comment them. Regards,
( Aiarakoa )
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general