|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Oct 2, 2015 9:56:20 GMT -6
Since we have the two candidates could we vote on it during the Clark anyway? We would have the result even without the action by the SoS. Would this be inorganic?
|
|
|
Post by Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on Oct 2, 2015 14:24:48 GMT -6
well... organicaly it just needs to be a vote by cosa members, it doesnt specify how. Maybe just a voting thread would do??
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Oct 5, 2015 3:53:22 GMT -6
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. How hard is it to include this in the Clark? Just a simple suggestion: why not simply create a thread on it? I am trying to save time for this, but between you and me, you are not currently living my life... We returned twice to the hospital for my daugther since the last time I posted an update, and she missed 2 days of school last week. She reacts badly to her new medication for her lungs, and doctor are at a loss.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 7, 2015 18:16:29 GMT -6
I'm incredibly sorry to hear that, but this is exactly why you have deputies so that you can share the burden when real life (understandably) takes precedence.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 7, 2015 20:57:39 GMT -6
I'm incredibly sorry to hear that, but this is exactly why you have deputies so that you can share the burden when real life (understandably) takes precedence. I suspect it isn't as easy as you seem to be assuming. The Clark function in the Database is set up to allow for two things: voting on bills (per/contra) and voting on the VoC (üc/non). I doubt it has the present capability to support just any kind of vote you might want to conduct via the Clark on an ad-hoc basis, like a choice between named candidates. Facilitating a Túischac'h election via the Clark will probably require some recoding of the Database. I doubt any of MPF's deputies have that ability. They can run the Clark, presumably, but they can't reprogram it at whim.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Oct 8, 2015 4:13:30 GMT -6
I'm incredibly sorry to hear that, but this is exactly why you have deputies so that you can share the burden when real life (understandably) takes precedence. I suspect it isn't as easy as you seem to be assuming. The Clark function in the Database is set up to allow for two things: voting on bills (per/contra) and voting on the VoC (üc/non). I doubt it has the present capability to support just any kind of vote you might want to conduct via the Clark on an ad-hoc basis, like a choice between named candidates. Facilitating a Túischac'h election via the Clark will probably require some recoding of the Database. I doubt any of MPF's deputies have that ability. They can run the Clark, presumably, but they can't reprogram it at whim. Exactly... And it's not just adding it to the voting form, that's not too complicated, it's also adding it to the report, to the clark printing, etc...
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 8, 2015 4:57:53 GMT -6
And it's not just adding it to the voting form, that's not too complicated, it's also adding it to the report, to the clark printing, etc... Yes, I thought of that too. The reports of Clark results have the same sections every time. You'd have to figure out how to implement a new section (Túischac'h election results) that appears only when it's needed and not on every Clark. I pointed out in the Hopper thread for the Articulate Amendment that the proposal would be difficult to implement because the Clark system does not support elections of officers, but that objection was blown off with a vague suggestion that a later bill would clarify election procedures. Of course that never happened. So I think it's a little unfair to complain about M-P not figuring out the election process on his own at this stage. We really need to be more careful about dumping new responsibilities on the SoS without considering their impact on existing processes.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 10, 2015 3:26:32 GMT -6
I don't think I mentioned using the database?
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Oct 10, 2015 5:46:28 GMT -6
I don't think I mentioned using the database? In that case, why not simply post a thread calling people to vote for the Tuischac'h? I can then tally the votes...
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 10, 2015 7:52:08 GMT -6
I don't think I mentioned using the database? That's how the Clark is run, and how many MCs submit their Clark votes. How did you envision it being on the Clark but not in the Database?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 10, 2015 7:59:12 GMT -6
Okay, despite my argument with a Senator right now, I agree this is a bit embarrassing. And the vote happening right now is impossible, and we'll have to start over. You can't open and close nominations arbitrarily, or else you're strongly influencing the results, and you can't have a vote in the whole Cosa without notifying everyone or setting a time-frame! I'm going to take the bull by the horns, here, and lay out this plan: Open formal nominations. Nominations will be open for three days, and we'll ask MPF to send an email to all Cosa members through the official system to notify them. I don't think that should present any difficulty or new programming? If it does, I'll just do it manually. After formal nominations, we'll have the vote. It also needs a defined time period of three days, or else it could just end whenever -- you're probably not going to get every single Cosa member to vote on this one, after all. The winner takes it. If it's a tie, then a second ballot. Honestly, folks... you need a predetermined process! Then an hour after the election, the Tui can post party allotments for the Funziun Committee, proportional to party share of the Cosa, and then go do nothing for the rest of the term. I see there was a vote going on... sort of. Hopefully everyone agrees to this, though? Sir C. M. Siervicül C. Carlüs Xheraltescù Breneir Itravilatx Françal Ian LuxEDIT: If people strongly feel that the current vote should just continue, I'll agree to that, but... yeesh.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Oct 10, 2015 9:52:01 GMT -6
We already have three votes in an open thread for two Tuischac'h nominees. I will not vote in another effort. The delay has already been unacceptably long.
Let's set a timeframe for the vote already underway (perhaps the end of this Clark) and get this done. We had open nominations for this months ago.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 10, 2015 10:36:36 GMT -6
All right, but it's your funeral. I hope M.T. becomes active again.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Oct 10, 2015 10:50:11 GMT -6
Sir Alex, while I did not vote for you I support Gluc's call for supporting your nomination per the standing tradition. I just want to stick to the current vote. Add a closing date since we already have nominees. I'm not trying to be difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 10, 2015 11:28:28 GMT -6
I understand, and I didn't think you were trying to be difficult. For my part, I don't care if I get the position or not (to do what? not a big mover and shaker, so I couldn't advance RUMP goals very much at all), and I wasn't trying to grub for a do-over. Indeed, a do-over decreases the odds I would get the position. I just think that a fair process is important, and if we're going to do this, we should put someone in who's active.
EDIT: By the way, I hope you don't think I bear you any animosity at all about... well, anything. I know this and the TAID thing might leave you with the impression I'm out to "get" you or something, but that's not the case!
|
|