Re: Meta post Part II

On May 3, 6:45 pm, Siobhan <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 2. THE BID COMMITTEES
....
> c. A two-stage voting process where a bid has to be ratified on the ng
> berfore going to vote.

I vote for C.  :)  Easy to implement (as Peter suggested), and seems
reasonable.  I think the committees should feel the need to come on
here and discuss things within the ng to convince us that they have
their hearts in the right place, as well.


> 3-1. HOW WE VOTE
>
> a. Using the existing database system
> b. A public vote ala Axel's idea of doing it here on the newgroup

I vote for A.  It's already in place, and if we implement C above, the
wheat will have been separated from the chaff before it even gets to
the rest of the voters.


> 3-2. WHO GETS TO VOTE/HOW PEOPLE GET ADDED TO THE VOTER LIST
> ii. Once on the list, you stay on the list.

I vote for "Once on the list, you stay on the list" - implementing C
above will give people in the ng higher voting power (technically,
they'd get to vote twice), but a general vote from everyone could
certainly be a tiebreaker between two excellent bids that passed that
first round.


> c. Paying to vote, with the funds going to the winning committee as
> start-up money.

I do NOT like this.  Money is... well, it just makes things more
complicated.


> d. Invite codes/sponsor****ps from existing voters to add new people to
> the database.

For adding new people to the database, I DO like this.


> 4. THE C*B*L
> "More transparency" seems to be the main suggestion, but I'm not sure
> what that means. Who does what? Will having the wiki available be
> enough?

Eh.  The wiki is enough, IMO.  I mean, is there really a mystery about
it?  Seriously?

meiow!