Straw polls

[Billy]

     I think we should be able to make use of straw polls during the GA to make things more efficient.

 

     Some examples would be if the moderator thinks there might be a lot of input on a topic they could ask how many people intend to get on stack for that topic and if the number is large then ask the submitter of the proposal if they would like to work on it further in committee and then re-submit the proposal. At that point announce that it is going back into committee and anyone that want to input can do so after the GA in committee or on the forums. This could reduce large stack lines of people that really should not be addressing the GA but the committee.

 

     Another similar use is that if a stack line start growing the moderator could ask how many people think it should be sent back to committee and worked on further. At that point the submitter could decide if he wanted to do so or go ahead with the process.

 

     I've submitted a few proposals tonight that could be used only in consensus situations and therefore I feel don't really need to be voted on. I'm not trying to sneak anything past anyone I just think that we as a group should be able to work on the fly and adjust the process to fit the situation without having to make lots of hard and fast rules that apply to everyone in every situation. I mean if everyone present agrees I see no need to write a formal process. The only time procedures should have to be written and voted on is if we want to go around consensus and force something on a 90/10 basis.

 

     I think effective moderation should be able to make use of consensus to make our process more efficient and I think this would encourage us to work towards consensus more which to me would seem more fair and more inclusive.

[Billy]

     This exact thing happened last night after I wrote this. We had a vote that was very close we had a huge stack with a lot of people that wanted to talk. In my opinion either the proposer or the moderator should have sent this back to committee to be worked on more. The GA is stated to be a place for ideas that have been well thought out and properly address in committee. I suggest that a stack line of 40 people is a good indication that it was not worked out well enough in committee.

 

    I also think that most if not all of the dissenting voters we voting no because of the manner in which the demands were being presented and not so much the specific demands them selves. More clearly we seemed to be bothered by the fact that we were voting on specific demands with no discussion on if we wanted to as a group have any specific demands at all. Voting in 12 different demand seemed to me to be a bypass of the democratic process in that situation. Regardless of if you agree with me or not on this most of the other dissenter did and that is relevant because this could have been identified and dealt with as one issue to make things go smoother instead of taking 12 hard votes that seem to be dividing the group and make the dissenters stand up for what they believe 12 different times on the same topic.

 

     I talked to several of the dissenting voters and they all communicated to me that they would have abstained from voting on these demands individually if we had had a discussion on the idea of demands as a whole and voted on that issue first. Again regardless of if you agree with our viewpoint or not identifying that issue and separating it could make 12 hard votes become one hard vote and 12 quick and easy ones.

 

     I am not sighting this as a criticism of the moderator nor his abilities as I admire and have respect for both. This process is new and we are learning as we go. I am only using this to focus attention on one aspect of many where I see a way to make things: smoother, fairer, more efficient and more honest.