Thanks. Here we go.
Could we not do it by Email?
I don’t see a better way that is simple and yet grants some accuntability, including (maybe) having a proper pirate address as well as, and that is important in practical sense, the sending time in local time, which emails include. There would be different ways to do it, like creating accounts in congressus or accepting any way of message whether it is instant messaging or by phone. The first would be a bureaucratic effort that needs regular checking but can maybe be delegated to the members, the second would be hard to verify properly, as all submissions would need documentation. We can discuss other ways, but I think email is a good compromise. As for security, we have a 24h check in place, in case somebody messed with the emails.
I think, that all amandements and motions need to by publicly announced before or at the start of frozen week.
Why? Frozen state gives the board the appropriate time to format and send the notifications. We shouldn’t assume that this will be done at the moment when frozen week starts but give it a proper time frame, which a full week sure is. After frozen week there is a full weeks time for voting anyway.
Also voting process needst to be established at that moment.
This was meant to be established in the order of business to be created and sent by the board.
Iniciation is usually held by smaller group, than the one that is reguired for decision.
Something like >1/6 i.e. 1/10th would make sense in this case.
1/3 is addressing the right to call for a GA, so no changes there. It’s a continuation of the current rule. Also the intent was to have more member interaction and discussion before the actual submission. If we’d lower invoking right to a small group, we would create a lot more bureaucracy, would give trolls an easy to use tool to load the board with senseless work and would in no form guarantee more member interaction. I think having 1/3 of members send an email to circumvent the board is a very generous agreement.
As this is just special type of extraordinary online assembly, i see no reason to change the statutes. We have art. XI. (4), which should be IMHO sufficient for this change.
As we are going to have a panel capable to change statutes, I’d rather have it spelled out. Otherwise one could argue voting week is not included. I agree that it could be incorporated into XI. (4), but I want the words “voting week” in there, so things are clear and not up for misinterpretation.
“One Voting week should be limited by topic given by original proposal/initiative. I dont want six weeks initiated for revorking of CoA or Membership overtaken by political motion on current topics, or something.”
If we are having a special form of GA I think it’s only fair to allow every member to submit whatever they see fit and as there is a full week for voting, it’s easy to vote even on a bulk of matters. Let’s not forget, you need a 1/3 of members for invoking voting week. I highly doubt one would get these many members involved for a minor change.
If on the other hand we’Äd use it only for one specific topic, I think that renders the whole tool pretty worthless. Again this is a continuation of the current rules for a GA, not a change. If a GA is announced, everyone is free to submit motions. I want to keep that good tradition.
If we’d need to address a matter out of urgency voting week would not be very useful anyway, so I don’t see an upside their. The idea compared to a regular GA is to make decision-making more inclusive and less of a job for the board. Your suggestion would oppose that idea.