|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 17:12:04 GMT -5
Both processes call for a baseline vote on basic grievances to include.
The Steering Committee process then calls for 2 minute speeches by all delegates followed by a second vote on all grievances.
The Delegate process calls for organizing the grievances and starting with those that have the most support, using a moderated debate/reflective panel format with arguments for/against, and then opening the panel up for questions from the floor, then vote on the grievance just debated. Two possible options here are to attempt to do this for every grievance, or to only debate grievances that have a legitimate shot of making the petition (i.e. say anything with 51% support or higher if using threshold, or the top 30 of 100 if using straight numbers)
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 18, 2012 18:40:05 GMT -5
I like having a baseline number to make it worth the "majority's" interest, but I question the need for "everyone to have 2 minutes". There just might be some delegates that have "more to say" on a particular issue, than other delegates, so perhaps, have some delegates grant "their time" might work as well. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 20:11:02 GMT -5
The point of having everyone speak for 2 minutes, as I understand it, is to make sure everyone feels like they've gotten to have their say. I think we can accomplish this in other ways though, AND have a reflective debate panel.
Two ways this would be accomplished:
First, the second half of each debate on a specific grievance would involve questions from the floor, so anyone who has something to say that is related to that grievance and hasn't already been said will have the opportunity to speak.
Second, after we get through the debates on matters that have a legitimate shot at making it into the petition (this seems to be the consensus option at the moment), any delegate that wishes to speak out and offer an amendment to include something that has not reached the threshold, or to exclude something that has will be allotted time to make their case.
The idea that everyone speaking for two minutes INSTEAD of having a moderated debate though, which is what the Steering Committee is currently proposing, makes far less sense to me. The speeches won't follow any logical order, jumping randomly from one topic to another, and there will be no chance for rebuttals or counterarguments.
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 18, 2012 21:18:35 GMT -5
...not to mention that we'll hear hours upon hours of the same things restated. Waste of time, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 21:23:21 GMT -5
lol, well I won't at least. I've already stated IF I come and this is the process (and judging by responses here so far I don't think it will be), but if I come and this is the process, I'll be leaving for beer and cheesesteaks as soon as the speeches start and coming back for the voting. Because frankly speaking, that would be a better use of my time.
And of course anyone who wishes to join me is welcome.
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 18, 2012 22:26:56 GMT -5
Just from one experience: Gino's is just OK. The roll is delicious, but the steak and cheese are kind of meh. I'm told that it's shaved ribeye, but it tasted about like Steak'ums. Just one man's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 22:48:29 GMT -5
Pat's baby.
|
|