Proposal for procedure for making proposals :)

[Pendaric]

At the moment, anybody wanting to propose a policy is just starting a poll with whatever wording seems appropriate to them - I'm as guilty of this as the next man, probably more so.

Discussion then occurs in the thread which can cause people who've already voted to change their mind or can cause the original proposal to require changing.

How about this for a suggested procedure:

If you want to propose a policy, start a thread in here entitled 'Proposal: Policy X should be enacted'. At the same time start a thread in the Town Hall titled 'Peanut Gallery for 'Proposal: Policy X should be enacted.' to allow members to express their views for consideration. ETA: Cross link both threads.

Let the initial discussion go for 3 days. This gives time for people to ask questions, for concerns to be addressed, and for any changes to the proposal which seem appropriate following consultation to be made.

At the end of the 3 day period, the OP restates their proposal in the light of the discussion. This restated proposal then needs to get another member of staff to second it.

A poll thread is then created with the refined proposal and a link to the original discussion and peanut gallery threads in order to give context. This poll is open for voting for a 3 day period.

Currently, we require a 60% majority of all staff members in order to adopt a policy. I would suggest changing this to 60% of all members voting in the 3 day poll - if you aren't interested enough in the subject to vote over a 3 day period then your opinion shouldn't count in the vote. This being subject to a minimum quorum of 7 votes in favour of the proposal.

If the vote is inconclusive, ie less than 60% majority of all staff voting, then the proposal goes to an Admin vote, again over a period of 3 days. The majority Admin vote takes the day.

A proposal then cannot be re-proposed for at least a month. This includes rewordings where the main point is still effectively the same. This prevents proponents of the losing side perpetually bringing the same subject up in the hope of eventually changing the vote.

[Pendaric]

Peanut gallery thread here (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1480)

[umop apisdn w,I]

To be honest, I think this is way too formal.

If we find that we are having problems, then sure - we can put together some kind of official procedure for making proposals, but until then I think this is a merely solution looking for a problem...

[Bright Life]

I like the idea of discussion before polling on something big, like the ombuddy, for example. Something relatively simple should be okay, though.

[Octavia]

It does kind of seem too formal to me as well, Pendaric. How about simply agreeing not to post a poll until the issue's been discussed? How long that discussion takes will depend on the issue... let it run till people are happy.

[RexT]

What Octavia said.

Also, it appears there is growing consensus not to post a corresponding peanut gallery. Preferring instead to let members start peanut galleries if there is an interest in a policy being discussed.

[Pendaric]

Dropping auto creating peanut galleries fine - members can create their own if they want them.

However, I think there is merit in having a formal procedure for policy making. The policies which we adopt will be the basic criteria for the governance of the board. We are emphasising the importance of doing things by the book - creating the policies which will be the guiding principles of what that book is should be done absolutely scrupulously because of their keystone status.

A standard 3 day window for discussion lets everybody know how long they have to contribute. It prevents people thinking 'I'll get back to that later' and then finding that the issue has moved to a poll quicker than expected. It also means that policy discussions will not be interminable and stuck on points before going to a poll.

I also think that changing to a 60% majority of those voting rather than a 60% majority of all staff makes a lot more sense, particularly if something comes up over a holiday period or any point when a lot of staff may be absent. Again, if there is a standard length of time to vote then staff know how long they have to consider the issue before they miss the chance of voting.

[Bright Life]

Um, no on the % voting. That has caused problems, IMO. If there's a holiday or what not, just extend the voting time.

[RexT]

Pendaric,

You raise some points and I'm mostly agreeable. I think a set time for discussion before a poll is well and good in the event that nearly all (as yet undefined) members have at least an opportunity to participate. I imagine that this would be the case most of the time. But one can also imagine times, rare as they might be, when as many as half the staff might be absent for periods of three days during discussions and polls and where we might be getting policies voted in by a 60% majority of only a 50% staff vote. That would be tantamount to passage of a policy by 30% of staff and mean the possibility of getting a policy that might otherwise be very unpopular.

As with unilateral discretion to act in an emergency, which can later be overturned if felt necessary, I'd hope also that such minority passages of policies would occur only where something of a pressing matter is at stake and could also be overturned if it later became an issue.

Alternatively, we could set a minimum participation at around, say, 80% of staff, again, except if less staff find themselves against a pressing matter that needed a policy fast. Though I must admit I can't think of why we might need a policy so fast that it couldn't wait an additional three days or so until at least 80% of staff voted.

Or there could be a descending scale beginning at possibly 80% participation until three days had passed and dropping to, say, 60% participation after six days and so on. Just some more suggestions we might consider, haven't really thought this last one through.

[Pendaric]

If we went down the percentage voting route then it should be subject to a minimum quorum, agreed.

I just know from experience that some mods don't necessarily want to get involved in the policy making side of things, particularly as time goes by and we bring on staff who weren't part of the initial group - some just want to run their own forum. You also get occasional mods disappearing for periods of time because of real life issues.

Ideally, all staff would be available and inclined to vote on all issues. Pragmatically, that's rarely the case.

[Bright Life]

That's why each one needs an "abstain" option. That way, more people vote, and everyone knows that they've reviewed it.