Records Committee
   Pre-voting Discussion for  
Bylaws Proposals
by Kris Purdy & Mark Stackhouse
  

Discussion


The actual vote will come later after we've discussed
the following proposals:

"I'm also open to the proposed amendment's language being re-tooled as the committee considers it."  ~ Kris
 
Main Idea:    
 
 Bylaws change for Section IV.C.:    (See Bylaws Section IV.C.)

Rationale:

Proposal 1:

I'd like to see the bylaws require comments when a voting member chooses to send a record to the second round with a 'To 2nd' vote.
 
Justification: Comments are not required at the present time, which has sometimes led to other committee members not knowing what to address in their second round vote comments to the person who chose the 'To 2nd' option.  The 'To 2nd' voter's concerns might be answered after seeing the first round voting comments, but there's no guarantee.     ~ Kris
 

Proposal 2:
 

 I’m in favor of the change, but echo Bryant’s thought - why don’t we just change it to require a comment on every vote, even affirmative? If it’s a no-brainer vote, then a simple “good documentation,” or something similar, would suffice. For more difficult records an explanation of even “accept” votes is helpful in future round discussions.   ~ Mark
 
Proposal #1:    

                   

 


              Proposed Change  (Proposal #1)

The bylaws presently say this:

C. Voting and Acceptance Criteria
5. Comments. On the first circulation a "reject/no" vote must be supported by appropriate comments. Comments must be supplied for a re-circulation for either a "reject/no" or "accept/yes" vote.

I propose amending that line to this:

C. Voting and Acceptance Criteria
5. Comments. On the first circulation reject/no and To 2nd votes must be supported by appropriate comments. 'Appropriate' is defined as the specific concerns that justified not accepting the record or caused the voting member to want to discuss it without choosing a position in the first round. Comments must be supplied for a re-circulation for either a "reject/no" or "accept/yes" vote.

     

Proposal #2:    

                   

 


              Proposed Change (Proposal #2)

Current:

C. Voting and Acceptance Criteria
5. Comments. On the first circulation a "reject/no" vote must be supported by appropriate comments. Comments must be supplied for a re-circulation for either a "reject/no" or "accept/yes" vote.

Change to:

C. Voting and Acceptance Criteria
5. Comments. All votes must be supported by appropriate comments.

     

Comments::    

                   

    
   In the order submitted:
Mike Schijf (1 Aug)
I like the proposal, and I have actually considered suggesting something similar. Thanks to Kris for taking the time to put this together. The wording is clear and I would feel comfortable voting on it as written.
 

Bryant (1 Aug)
I also agree with this bylaw proposal and have struggled to address to 2nd record concerns without comments. Honestly I'd like to see comments required on any vote, event just a simple acknowledgment of a well write record is nice, something to at least lets other committee members know you actually considered the record carefully.

Max (1 Aug)
I also agree and like the proposal. Thank you Kris for drafting up the language!

Mark (1 Aug)
I’m in favor of the change, but echo Bryant’s thought - why don’t we just change it to require a comment on every vote, even affirmative? If it’s a no-brainer vote, then a simple “good documentation,” or something similar, would suffice. For more difficult records an explanation of even “accept” votes is helpful in future round discussions.

I’d propose that we change the bylaw as such:

Current:

C. Voting and Acceptance Criteria
5. Comments. On the first circulation a "reject/no" vote must be supported by appropriate comments. Comments must be supplied for a re-circulation for either a "reject/no" or "accept/yes" vote.

Change to:

C. Voting and Acceptance Criteria
5. Comments. All votes must be supported by appropriate comments.

Many of us do this already, and it doesn’t significantly add to the time or effort required to vote.


Mike Hearell  (1 Aug)
 I also agree with the changes.

On the topic of “to 2nd” without comments; Off of the top of my head, I do know I’ve left comments off of a “to 2nd” vote in the past when I’ve had less than ideal opinions about the observer. I wanted to see if others had those reservations as well before I stated such. If I have biases against a certain observer, I don’t want to taint others thoughts and instead allow them a vote based solely on the merits of the record. If I didn’t feel the record stood on its own, I would’ve voted “No” and not been concerned with the other noise.
 
 
Kris (6 Aug)
Thanks to all for commenting on the bylaw proposal:

I don't have a strong objection to Mark's re-phrasing to require comments on all votes. I have a weak objection. My rationale in not including first-round Accept comments in the proposal is that sometimes they add nothing to clear and straightforward first-round Accept votes. My goal is to make comments that are substantive (although I don't always succeed) rather than white space-fillers, and I'd like to think that integral to the act of voting I've given a record a thorough review. "Easy" records don't benefit from my commenting "Easy record" and so I think not making any comment is better than offering a platitude. Oh, wait! Can we amend the proposal to say, "appropriate comments; no platitudes"?!? Just kidding, actually.

Should the amended proposal be adopted, I shall endeavor to make comments on first-round Accept votes that are richly enlightening, erudite, insightful, compelling, and all manner of intelligent in order to justify the use of my keyboard.
 

Mike Schijf  (7 Aug)
As someone who almost always includes comments with my first round "Accept" votes, I agree with Kris here. It may be good practice, but I don't believe it's necessary to make it a requirement written into our bylaws.