Message 1 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Oct 12 22:39:42 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: well... There seems to be a stray "if" in Requests 3, but aside from that, it at least looks workable as a system. My question is, why do we need term limits, other than to shut Karl up? -Xi -------------------------- Message 2 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Oct 13 02:57:53 1993 PDT From: APHiD (#33119) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Why We Need Term Limits Well, because if we don't have term limits, people will be elected-for-life and I think we should get a fair amount of new blood in the ARB from time to time. A membership enema, if you will. Once we clear out the driftwood members by inactivity dismissal, we'll have 15 members who are serious members but their views may not represent the changing MOO society. Setting a term length will insure that it doesn't get stuck with the same views forever. It'd still be a power elite but it would be a dynamic power elite. Speaking of which, do you think you could just do the part about Requests and Quota Grants in yours and leave the Term Lengths for mine or would rather we have some kind of race to see whose petition gets more signatures first? It might be better to do them as seperate issues anyway and if mine gets ballotship first, it might make it necessary for you to re-edit yours and wind up losing any votes you'd had. Of course, if you want to keep this that Term Length stuff in yours, go right ahead. By the way, out of curiosity, how did you pick the order of removal staggering? Was it randomly generated or what? -------------------------- Message 3 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Oct 13 05:47:40 1993 PDT From: Kilik (#2819) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: ARB-Rules OK! OK, at first glance this is a good cut and should be merged with the other petition on this topic. I have a fair number of comments though (not all consistent, just poking holes and tooting horns). Frankly I think a set of voluntary resignations will start the ball rolling much more quickly in terms of getting the arb to have a popular mandate. I would split this part of the petition off and wait to see what happened - it will be the most controversial part to be sure, judging from recent conversations with arbers, and you probably would like to see the rules part implemented independently and sooner. You should also justify the order of rotation and the intervals. Is it by seniority or by lot? Monthly intervals seem like they may saturate us with arb campaigns during election "season". Members should not be removed before regular elections are held (OK in the case of special elections when a vacancy develops), they should sit on the board until the election is decided and the new member(s) are ready to be installed. Otherwise there will be significant periods of time when the board is way understrength. Note that sitting arb members may not run for election as per *B:New-ARB. Unless they resign, of course. [Repeal of that provision of *B:New-ARB may be in order - but again perhaps split off] I don't think any distinction should be made for the terms of elected members based on how the seat opened up. That doesn't seem fair to me. If you run for election and win you should be intitled to the standard term. Entitled even. Personally, I think 3 days is too long for a player itching to get on with building. One reason the ARB is so big is so that there is a good chance that enough members will log on in a short period to take action. How about 1 day? Maybe a vote of "delay" could be cast by proxy to extend this minimum for cases considered controversial. Again, two weeks is too long to force a decision, I would make it 5 or 7 days, and if no decision is made there should be a default of denied with no provision for ongoing discussion. This will put pressure on the ARB to be timely and impose a cost on it for being slow - players will bring pressure to bear through whatever means to get the ARB to do its job. The voting rules are complicated and not obviously reversible. Just define what it means to be approved, otherwise the request is denied. The way I read the rules, a vote of 11 to 4 would result in a request denied. I think thats a little too lop-sided. Quota grants are not as important in the scheme of things as ballots, so why should they have a more stringent passing rule? The current rule is three more "yeas" than "nays", which has worked well. One problem that *has* arisen is deciding when the voting is closed. Often the ARB has just waited until the passing criterion is met, then asked a wiz to @quota the player. Obviously this is not quite fair since the next vote, just being cast as the wizard is being paged, could be a 'nay' (this may actually have happened once). Maybe voting could be considered closed when a) the waiting period is finished and b) when votes of "delay" have been converted to "yea", "nay" or withdrawn; ie everyone who has indicated a desire to consider the request has come to some conclusion. In general, it may be better to let the ARB decide as many of its rules as possible, without requiring petitons etc to impose/change them. That will be a lot simpler for the arb to deal with, and if it is elected, the rules should be "representative". For example, the ARB should be able to appoint Puff to be "historian" and allow him access to *ARB even if by some cruel twist of fate he fails to be re-elected. Maybe allow the ARB itself to modify its own operating rules (not election rules) and require new rules to be posted to *public-arb and kept in an up-to-date rulebook. I know this petition doesn't say anything about this, but by making a set of arb rules by petition, it clouds the issue of whether other mechanisms are valid. The ARB doesn't hold "meetings". It carries on its work through *ARB and several objects for voting and gathering relevant information, so the part about a meeting of ARB members discussing a certain quota request doesn't make sense. If you mean on-line conversations between ARB members then there is an issue of verification. Some typos (independant instead of independent), the rogue if mentioned in the previous post, and duplication of the paragraph beginning "In the event..." As they say where I am right now, "Bon courage!" - Kilik -------------------------- Message 4 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Oct 13 07:35:28 1993 PDT From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Hmm. How did you come up with the staggered re-elections of the current members? Was it random? And it looks like I get to stay on forever, eh? heh Dred (ARB Member) -------------------------- Message 5 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Oct 13 17:30:25 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *social-issues (#7233), *Petition:ARB-Terms (#54834), and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: *ballot:new-arb There seems to have been a little bit of confusion about the phrase "not already on the ARB" in the passed ballot *b:new-arb. Looking at the context, I _thought_ it was obvious that the phrase was designed to disallow anyone running for a seat that already has one. It would _not_ prevent Kilik from running after resigning and I do not think it is problematic for any of the new ARB petitions that are coming out now. On another note, some people have commented that the ARB has no mandate. A minor side effect of my petition is that all quota-granting powers and policies of the ARB are to remain in place. That is, the ballot (in passing, I admit) grants legitimacy to current practice not involved with the election of new members. This doesn't stop anyone from changing these parameters, I just wanted to point out that a change is not needed ASAP, as the current structures have been mandated to be in place. If all of this seems bloody obvious to you, I apologize for wasting your time. :) -Xi -------------------------- Message 6 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Oct 13 17:30:53 1993 PDT From: Joe (#2612) To: Xiombarg (#37636), *Petition:ARB-Terms (#54834), and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Priorities > I have to disagree with Gru here. We should change the ARB one bit > at a time, not all at once, for maximum flexibility in the "new" > ARB. That's why my petition dealt solely with elections rather > than powers. I guess I don't see much point in puttering about with details about how people join this organization when its purpose, powers, and procedures have not been defined or ratified. > I'm afraid I _do_ think the ARB still has its old > powers; Haakon's decree mentioned only wizards, not the ARB. The ARB has the same undefined and nominally advisory powers it has always had; I think this is an anomaly, and fixing it is worth more effort than creating term limits is. > On another note, I think 3 months is _way_ too short a period of > time, especially for a body that is geared toward lifetime > members. I think quota granting should be a slow, well-considered > process. I tend to agree with you; note that Kilik is arguing on *p:arb-rules that three days is too long a minimum time for ARB decisions, and two weeks too long a maximum. (I think I agree with him on the latter, actually.) -------------------------- Message 7 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Oct 13 17:47:16 1993 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: Joe (#2612), Xiombarg (#37636), *Petition:ARB-Terms (#54834), and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: Priorities I reiterate that I think 6 months is the right time. It is long enough that people can do something after learning it, it is short enough that new citizens can reasonably be interested in running within their Moo lifetimes, and it's such that people who are unavailable for some part of the year can still in good conscience run for office during the part of the year that they are present. --M -------------------------- Message 8 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Oct 13 18:02:00 1993 PDT From: Xythian (#24436) To: APHiD (#33119) and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: Why We Need Term Limits The removal order was randomly generated with a call to :ranomly_permute except I inserted Phantom in the first load because he hasn't participated in known history... -------------------------- Message 9 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Oct 13 19:39:31 1993 PDT From: Xythian (#24436) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: ARB-Rules rewritten and explained I have decided to take the term limits out entirely and avoid discussion based on it (and let APHiD's petition deal with it) since it is, in fact, more important to define the guidelines for an organization before you worry about who gets in. I have rewritten the petition, taking some of the comments in to account as well as thoughts I've had since writing it. What follows is reasoning for each section of the petition (except Objectives). I. Requests: Handling and Discussion The period of commentary is to prevent a request from being passed or denied without a suitable period of discussion from taking place. In the past, requests have been decided without all interested parties getting a chance to respond. The time limits are to prevent a request from stagnating too long while also allowing for extended discussion if needed. II. Requests: Voting The "Delay" option is part of the mechanism to provide for more discussion of members think it is merited. The "Abstain" option is provided to distinguish, for both the public and the members, who is abstaining and who has not responded to the vote. All votes ought to be justified reasonably. If the member cannot think of justification, then he or she should not be voting. Please note I did not want to require justification because to do that I would need to come up with a definition for "justify", and that would get very fuzzy. Fuzzy is bad in "laws". Rules for how a vote is closed need to be set because of the "race condition" set up when a vote "passes" yet people are in the middle of voting. These rules seem reasonable to me. III. Requests: Post-voting This section sets up the rules for how a request is judged to have passed or failed. The votes of the ARB should not be anonymous, only the discussion should be. This is why the voting summary and justifications are posted. If a member wants to vote no (or, conversely, wants to vote yes) and has a good reason , then he or she should not be worried about everyone knowing how the vote went. This section also resolves the ambiguous case where the yes votes are more differing amounts. Finally, this section splits off from the need for wizardly intervention because quota is, to me, a social issue and the wizards really do not have any place decided anything about it. IV. Changing the rules Conditions change, and this section provides for that change. The "amendment" system has apparently kept the Constitution of the United States "current and up to date", as I think it will for the ARB's rule set. -------------------------- Message 10 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Oct 13 21:53:39 1993 PDT From: APHiD (#33119) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Rules (and not Terms) Thanks for taking out the term stuff. It's better to not be working at cross-purposes for the same thing. Also, this newer version of rules looks a lot better. -------------------------- Message 11 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Oct 14 15:10:14 1993 PDT From: Joe (#2612) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: initial comments [Resending pre-crash mail...] | ARB Restructuring: Voting Rules, Term Limits, and Transition It no longer covers term limits or transition, correct? | I. Organize known rules and structure within the ARB with regard to | handling requests. What does the word "known" mean here? It sounds like you're just organizing already existing practice, which you're not (completely). | III. Provide for the amendment and change to these rules as the conditions | merit. I'd just say "the amendment of these rules". It might be nice to have the numbered points here match up visibly with specific sections in the petition body. | A request cannot be acted on for at least three days after it has | been posted to *ARB and put on the quota board. One or the other, right? "three days after posted" and "three days after put on the quota board" may be different days. Also, for the sake of people not familiar with the inner workings of the ARB, you probably want to cover the notion of "sponsorship" somewhere in this. | After the three day discussion period, the request must be decided (Should this be "three-day"?) | upon within one week OR mail must be sent to the requester saying that I'd shrink this to within one week of original request or sponsorship (whichever you decide above). | two week period" OR "a meeting of ARB members in Star Chamber to | discuss this request has taken place within 12 hours"). I'd take out the part about meetings for three reasons. First, live meetings are uncommon enough that I don't think they need to be covered here. Second, I think logging meetings in #1000 so we can time this is silly. Third, if some members have a meeting, they should probably summarize what (if anything) was decided to the list anyway. I left out some points here. First, when you define "still taking place", why is it "within 48 hours of midnight of last day" instead of "within 48 hours of now"? That is, discussion is "still taking place" for as long as people are still discussing it (up until the two-week maximum). Second, again, when you state the two-week maximum, you need to say two weeks from _what_. | Abstain: Member abstains from this request and may or may not give a | reason why This distinguishes abstaining from simply not | voting. Typo, you want a period (and another space) after "why" (which word could probably be removed, actually). More importantly: Why is it important to distinguish abstaining from not voting? Does this have an effect anywhere? | Yes votes cannot be for an amount of quota that exceeds the | request and cannot be for less than half the request. Why? In particular, why the maximum? Among other things, I think this will lead requesters to aim high, with the expectation that they'll be bargained down, which doesn't appeal to me somehow. | There are two ways a vote can be closed. A vote stays open until | one or more of these conditions are met. A vote cannot close before Aw, just say "until one of these conditions is met". If more than one is met, then clearly one has been met. | 1) The first time limit is reached and there are no "delay" votes | OR the maximum time limit has been reached. In this case, the | vote closes at 11:59:59pm LambdaMOO Time on the last day. | Action (or inaction, as the case may be, takes place at | midnight). Move the close paren to after "be", and strike the comma that's there. Interesting, though: Why schedule time limits for midnight in an arbitrary (though admittedly somewhat special) time zone, instead of just setting a fixed-length closing time? | 2) Enough votes have been cast for the request to either pass or | fail. In this case, the vote closes on 11:59:59pm LambdaMOO | Time on the day it gathers enough votes. Again, I'd rather see something like "enough votes have been cast and there's been an N-hour waiting period" than putting closing time at midnight. | A request is to be considered "passed" if it gathers three yes | votes more than the number of "no" votes. If a request is for more | than 100 quota, then it requires four more than the number of no | votes. (I'd say five. It's a minor difference, perhaps, but I think large quota requests should need significantly more support.) | Once voting for a request has closed, the "Voting Summary" that | contains the votes and justifications of each member as well as who | abstained and who did not respond (i.e. did not vote yes, no, or | abstain) will be mailed both to the requester AND *Public-ARB. Quibble: "mailed to both the requester AND *Public-ARB". | All of the sections and rules proposed in this petition EXCEPT | THIS SECTION may be modified by the ARB by the following procedure: Guess we'd better get this part right, then. I'm not sure it's necessary to prevent the ARB from changing its rules for changing its rules... | 1) A modification or even an new set of rules is proposed, either | by a member or a non-member. | 2) The ARB examines and discusses these rules for a period of one | month. Do you really think this is necessary? Especially given that the voting period takes two weeks _after_ this period, and that there will no doubt be discussion during that time, I think this is excessively long. Also, I'd like to see that at least the proposal and hopefully most of the discussion gets directed to *public-arb. I understand the argument for ARB privacy in some matters, but I think in changing ARB policy the public should have both an ear and a voice. | two weeks. If all members do not vote, then the change cannot | take place Bleah. Also, you need a period. Actually, why separate the voting and discussion periods? Assuming a member can change eir vote after the fact, I don't see a problem with voting early... | If and only if two-thirds of all ARB members vote | "yea" will the new rules be put in practice. Technically, I think the ARB board lists these votes as "YES". I'd take out the "all members must vote" clause and let the two-thirds majority take care of it. Also, does abstaining factor in here? | The current rules AS WELL AS a list of changes made since the | original set (this one) was put in place must be available to the | public at all times. Actually, I'd like to see advice on a restructuring of the `quota' help texts. Maybe I'll post more about this on *public-arb or somewhere. Sorry for the length and incoherency; this is just a first run-through, I'm sure discussion will be more focused as time goes on... --JF -------------------------- Message 12 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Oct 14 15:20:11 1993 PDT From: Greene (#49795) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: How can you follow an act like that? | A request is to be considered "passed" if it gathers three yes | votes more than the number of "no" votes. If a request is for more | than 100 quota, then it requires four more than the number of no | votes. If I ran the world, I'd suggest that a request for more than 20 quota be considered large enough to merit four (or, as Joe says, five) extra yes votes. I don't see why giving out huge (for 100 truly is huge, as is 50, as is 25) amounts of quota in one swoop would be a good idea. I think people should be content with less. Can someone tell me why they shouldn't be? We're in a db-space depression, folks. We've got to accept smaller slices of the pie. -------------------------- Message 13 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Oct 14 15:40:15 1993 PDT From: Joe (#2612) To: Greene (#49795) and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: How can you follow an act like that? > If I ran the world, I'd suggest that a request for more than 20 > quota be considered large enough to merit four (or, as Joe says, > five) extra yes votes. I'd agree with this, actually. Maybe thirty or forty. (It's not uncommon for the ARB to vote these amounts, figuring that a builder's work is good enough that if e has to come back soon, they'll just vote em the quota again.) There are also a few special cases, like Grand_Master (quota 8500, last I checked), where the ARB gives out really huge amounts of quota, largely, I suspect, because these characters use and recycle objects automatically, and it seems worthwhile not to let them run out. I think 8500 is kind of ridiculous, myself, but the ARB doesn't feel justified in reducing quota, and G_M already had eight thousand some, and I guess they wanted to ratify it, so there you go then. -------------------------- Message 14 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Oct 14 15:43:15 1993 PDT From: Greene (#49795) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Further...why can't an ARB member vote a player an amount of quota that was not asked for? I figure ya should get what you can, whether that be more or less what you wanted. -------------------------- Message 15 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Oct 14 16:16:57 1993 PDT From: Morpheus (#2957) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) > From: Greene (#49795) > > Further...why can't an ARB member vote a player an amount of quota > that was not asked for? I figure ya should get what you can, > whether that be more or less what you wanted. Well, the idea behind this is that the person has some knowledge of how much quota they would require for whatever they are working on/intending to work on. If they are currently projectless, then no ARB member could say "Bugger it, let's give 'em twice what they asked for" in good faith. And as for less, the petition specifies that a member may vote for no less than half the quota requested. Much less than this and I would say there is a serious conflict between how good they requester thinks eir building is and the members opinion. Morpheus -------------------------- Message 16 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Oct 14 16:26:05 1993 PDT From: Joe (#2612) To: Morpheus (#2957) and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) > Well, the idea behind this is that the person has some knowledge > of how much quota they would require for whatever they are working > on/intending to work on. Actually, I've read over and over again that the ARB judges current work, and doesn't base its decisions on projected plans (planned projects?). > Much less than this and I would say there is a serious conflict > between how good they requester thinks eir building is and the > members opinion. . which doesn't mean the member shouldn't vote for the requester to get that much quota. I'd rather see a range limitation based on what members think than one based on what the requester wants. -------------------------- Message 17 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Fri Oct 15 11:38:28 1993 PDT From: Xythian (#24436) To: Joe (#2612), Morpheus (#2957), and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) And how would a system to codify "do what you think based on the requester wants"? -------------------------- Message 18 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Fri Oct 15 21:45:09 1993 PDT From: Quo_Vadis (#53118) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: hrmm About section 3) of the part about changing the practises of the ARB, doesn't it give an effective veto to the ARB members? By not voting on the change you can force it to fail. --QV -------------------------- Message 19 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Sat Oct 16 12:02:34 1993 PDT From: Gru (#122) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: ARB rules I sent some mail about this before, but it got lost in the crash. Consider not being so explicit, in the petition, about the details of ARB procedures. Doing so in a petition sets process into concrete unnecessarily. On the other hand, the petition currently doesn't really give the ARB much explicit power. We need some way of giving the ARB total control over every player's .ownership_quota property, and the power to establish policy as well as make individual decisions. That is, the petition could merely establish a voting mechanism (e.g., a majority of all elected ARB members) which would allow installing a VERB that ran with ARB permissions; ARB permissions would own $player.ownership_quota. I'm not certain of the details, but a simple majority of all arb members (not just those that vote) should be sufficient for establishing policy, although perhaps you would want a supermajority. Secondly, we need some way of establishing policy about .programmer bits; there's no reason why giving them out should be a wizardly act, and some reason to believe that, given the rampant verb copying, the ARB would be called on to restrict programmer bits as well. A similar mechanism could be set up for this, either with the same or a different set of rules for votes. -------------------------- Message 20 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Sat Oct 16 17:21:57 1993 PDT From: Xythian (#24436) To: Gru (#122) and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: ARB rules Oh bizarre. Shouldn't another group be formed to handle that sort of thing though? Actually, "Architechure" (sp, and no, I don't feel like looking it up) is affected by people copying verbs, but then this would be preemptive based on plans. Since a player can't say "I won't copy verbs" really and have us do anything to enforce that. How would you evaluate prospective programmer-wanna-be's? Pass a test? -------------------------- Message 21 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Oct 21 18:48:02 1993 PDT From: Xythian (#24436) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Expiration and this petition I've signed this petition. It dies on November 4th. Wonderful time limits we have here. -------------------------- Message 22 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Oct 26 14:30:24 1993 PDT From: Xythian (#24436) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: ... Apparently I hadn't made changes that I thought I had made. The petition has been updated... -------------------------- Message 23 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Mon Nov 8 12:39:00 1993 PST From: ARB-Rules (#47986) To: *Wizard-List (#6428), Xythian (#24436), and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Request for vetting Reply-to: Xythian (#24436), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Xythian, the author of *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986): `ARB Restructuring: Voting Rules, Term Limits, and Transition', has acquired 10 signatures on his petition and is submitting it to you, the wizards, for vetting. Please look it over and either 1) type `approve #47986' to grant it your mark of approval or 2) type `deny #47986' to refuse such approval and then send mail to **Petition:ARB-Rules explaining your reasons for doing so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -------------------------- Message 24 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Nov 10 13:26:05 1993 PST From: ARB-Rules (#47986) To: *Wizard-List (#6428), Xythian (#24436), and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Request for vetting Reply-to: Xythian (#24436), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Xythian, the author of *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986): `ARB Voting Rule Restructuring', has acquired 14 signatures on his petition and is submitting it to you, the wizards, for vetting. Please look it over and either 1) type `approve #47986' to grant it your mark of approval or 2) type `deny #47986' to refuse such approval and then send mail to **Petition:ARB-Rules explaining your reasons for doing so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -------------------------- Message 25 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Nov 10 18:35:19 1993 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Mickey's comments The main sections should be lettered or numbered so that direct references are easier. Each subsection has I, II, etc. which makes direct naming of sections tricky. In Requests:handling, section II, paragraph 1, I'm not sure what the purpose of including the term "polite" is. While I think most things in the world should be polite, I don't think the word has a clear purpose here and I'd like to see it removed as unnecessary. In Requests:handling, Section II, I think this proposal should include a provision for emergency grants of quota. This might be necessary in order for some maintainer-type-person to fix an important facility that everyone uses on shorter notice. I think that it would be sufficient to say that requests which take In Requests:voting, section I, the Abstain item is missing a ".". In requests:voting, section II, the phrase "Yes votes ..." is visually ambiguous. I read it first as "Yes, votes...". I think you should use quotes around Yes, or some funky case, like: `Yes' votes ... Also in Requests:voting, Section II, the minimum limit on a request seems arbitrary. Suppose I tell you I want 10 more quota to build a `magic gun' because it has many working parts and you study my proposal and tell me that you think it should only take me quota 1. I think you should be permitted to grant me quota 1. I think it's dumb that you'd have to either turn down my request or to give me more than you thought I needed. I think an upper bound is sufficient. By the way, I would REQUIRE an explanation in any case where the vote was not for the requested amount of quota. In "Changing the rules", I see no reason for the ARB to be able to make its own rules. I believe that a rule change should have to go through the populace. (I might be susceptible to designating certain parameters that could be changed unilaterally by the ARB, but I would want to define that they could only at predefined intervals that were long enough to make each change be open to individual inspection and debate. But mostly I just don't think any of this stuff changes fast enough for it not to be a good idea to run it by the public.) -------------------------- Message 26 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Nov 10 20:41:55 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: Mickey (#52413) and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: Mickey's comments > In "Changing the rules", I see no reason for the ARB to be able to > make its own rules. I believe that a rule change should have to > go through the populace. I'd like the ARB to be able to change its (internal) rules. Given that these rule changes must be discussed in public, and are subject to public review through the petition system (or whatever other general decision-making system might come into existence), and less directly through the election of ARB members, I don't see this as a significant threat to LambdaMOO democracy (such as it is). > But mostly I just don't think > any of this stuff changes fast enough for it not to be a good idea > to run it by the public. I think allowing the ARB to flexibly alter its procedures as circumstances change, or just as it becomes clear that some things aren't working, is a good idea. We're not going to get it right on the first try with a petition, and I don't want to have to deal with the whole petition process to fix the mistakes. -------------------------- Message 27 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Nov 10 21:29:42 1993 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Joe (#2612) and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: Mickey's comments I'd like to see some checks and balances, but I don't mind the process being streamlined. How about the following: The ARB can change its rules internally, but must post its plan for change 4 weeks before they take effect. This gives time for a petition to be created to block said change (and for it to go to ballot) if such a need arises, but does not place undue burden on the ARB to get affirmative consent. Also, I am hard pressed to think of any ARB rule that would need to change more immediately. (If it did, it would presumably only be because of danger to the integrity of the MOO, and Haakon can change the rules by fiat in such special circumstances since they are beyond the scope of the petition system.) -------------------------- Message 28 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Nov 11 00:31:10 1993 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: quota numbers Since there is a pending petition that would change the quota units (and hence typical magnitudes), can we express the quota value of 100 which is literally mentioned in the petition in some other form. e.g., "ten times the default allocation". Btw, I agree with those who would like to see this be smaller, with a bigger confirming number. e.g., "three times the default amount" [i.e., 30] should require 5 votes. I have no problem with large quota given out for good reason, but if the reason is good, a bunch of votes should be possible to obtain. --M -------------------------- Message 29 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Nov 11 10:12:45 1993 PST From: Xythian (#24436) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: Mickey's comments Well, the system already accounts for a two week delay between "start of debate/posting of rules" and the close of voting. I see no reason to delay it more than two weeks (although an original draft had a delay of six weeks from start to end). Much more than two weeks, and it gets to be pointless delay. People who are interested will have noticed and posted their views on it within the two week time period. -------------------------- Message 30 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Nov 11 18:09:51 1993 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Xythian (#24436) and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: Mickey's comments Balloting takes two weeks. You need enough times to bring a petition to ballot or the idea that the population can have a meaningful say is useless. If you're not going to change it that way, then I think you must create a way for citizens to directly protest a proposed ARB rule change, and say that if more than n protests are lodged, the rule change does not take effect. If you don't do either of these, then I think you are creating a process with inadequately responsive checks on its power and I will not vote for it. -------------------------- Message 31 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Nov 11 18:17:26 1993 PST From: Puff (#1449) To: Xythian (#24436) and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Your petition Xythian, I declined your petition. I don't have a problem with the rules you propose, but I do have a problem with the way you proposed them. So far, the ARB has been self-regulating. Most, if not all of the rules you propose, should properly have been proposed on *arb, discussed, and voted on. Until a ballot is passed that changes the ARB's jurisdiction or establishes a governing body with the authority to change the ARB, I don't feel it's proper to effect changes via public petition. I suppose this is another case of, I don't want to set a precedent (like not wanting to set a precedent of reducing a player's quota, when Shung asked for that). Perhaps this is more of a personal opinion; I feel strongly about this, and I suspect it's a strong general point of procedure, but I could be wrong. Puff -------------------------- Message 32 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Nov 11 18:47:32 1993 PST From: Xythian (#24436) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: Your petition First of all, the ARB has been self regulating. This is quite true. The public has never seen or talked about (never mind had any say on) the rules that the ARB follows. Most people don't even KNOW the voting rules (x yes votes etc). This _IS_ the ballot the changes the ARB's "jurisdiction" making it more under the public eye instead of off making its own rules. You don't want to set a precendent of the public having a say in the rules that the ARB follows? Obviously, I could have proposed the actual rules to the ARB and probably gotten all or most of them implemented, but that would not have given the ARB a clear public mandate. The ARB's rules or members have never once been reviewed by the public. In theory, this petition handles the rules while APHiD's handles the "review" of the members. -------------------------- Message 33 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Nov 11 19:43:42 1993 PST From: splat (#59277) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: More proposed changes to this petition I haven't signed this petition yet, mostly because I have a problem with a few of the rules. There are some obvious typos that probably should not be in an important public document, but that's not a big deal. First of all the time limit before 'action is taken' ought really to be an interval from the last vote, rather than a certain LMST on the day of the vote. After all, this MOO is a global community, and that makes LMST rather a bad marker for anything social. Besides that, it's possible that voting could close one minute after the last vote comes in. It wouldn't be hard to set up automated verbs to do intervals either, and it wouldn't take a vast amount of DB space. I also have a problem with the definition of 'huge' allocations: they should be defined as twice or three times the minimum allocation for a requirement of a 4-vote margin, and 5 or 6 times should require a 5-vote margin. But most important is the procedure for deciding how much quota would actually be granted. Using the minimum suggested in a yes vote makes it much too easy for one bad apple to spoil the Board. If it became clear to an adamant opponent of a certain request that that request would in fact pass, e could just change eir vote to yes, suggesting the minimum quota, and that would be what the requester would get. If someone decided to make a regular occupation of this it would force everyone to request twice as much quota as e really needed, which is rather ridiculous. If the lower limit is taken off of the suggested amounts, the situation would be even worse, as the dissenter could simply put in 1 (or 0 if e was really obnoxious) for a request of 20 and invalidate the whole request despite what anyone else thinks. The whole idea of having more than one member on the ARB is so one individual cannot exercise such control over building on the MOO; this petition as it is would totally invalidate that. This point certainly deserves lengthy and detailed discussion and I'm not sure what to put in place of the current proposal at this time, only that it cannot stand as it is. splat -------------------------- Message 34 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Fri Nov 12 08:42:05 1993 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: splat (#59277) and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: More proposed changes to this petition Even global communities tend to be composed of people whose daily cycle is 24hours in length. I'd much rather have something synched to a clock and come out at 9am or 3pm in my time zone every time than have something not synched to a clock that has a different closing time every time so you can never learn where the deadline is from experience. As to decision procedure, I think a required explanation for not voting exactly the quota requested would serve as enough of a check on someone who habitually voted low. --M -------------------------- Message 35 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Fri Nov 12 12:22:29 1993 PST From: ARB-Rules (#47986) To: Xythian (#24436), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Petition vetted Reply-to: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) The wizard ur-Rog has determined that *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986): `ARB Voting Rule Restructuring' is implementable and has therefore vetted it. -------------------------- Message 36 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Fri Nov 12 14:52:51 1993 PST From: Xorian (#5229) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: A minor objection In the "Changing the rules" section, it reads: > 3) A majority of "yes" votes mean the new rules shall be put into place. Perhaps the earlier versions of this petition made this clearer and it got lost in translation but I find myself asking, a majority of "yes" votes by who? Presumably the ARB members, but it should say that explicitly. --X -------------------------- Message 37 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Sat Nov 13 10:52:31 1993 PST From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: I signed, have notes. I very much approve this petition on philosophical grounds, and have signed it. A few comments: 1. Splat is correct that one yes vote for small quota (not 1, as he gave, but 50%) skews the amount granted; imagine 10 votes for 30 quota, and one vote for 15, and 0 nay; the applicant gets 15. A member might be motivated to vote 'yes' instead of 'no' so as to determine the amount granted, if 'no' is a minority position. I would prefer an average. 2. Mickey mentioned, among several good points, that the process of granting quota should be sped up in emergencies; but emergencies are system issues properly handled by wizards. 3. Grump mentioned divesting the wiz job of granting prog bits; I disagree. Every prog bit is intrinsically a system security issue, IMHO. This petition incorporates mechanisms for improving itself; it is therefore better than any ten disagreeable details could hurt it. It is a model of how we should proceed to create a Society. yoof P.S. I am concerned about Puff's objection; I don't like for the creation of a public mandate for the ARB to exclude the ARB's capacity for self-determination. This sounds like a contradiction, but I believe it is an opportunity for constructive compromise. I believe Xythian's self-modification clauses effect this compromise well. -------------------------- Message 38 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Sat Nov 13 21:59:29 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986), *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812), and *Petition:Empower-ARB (#60888) Subject: alternate petition I feel a bit uncomfortable offering a counter-proposal at this point, but I was having trouble saying what I meant and thought I'd write it up in the form of a petition: *petition:empower-arb (#60888) is the simple proposal that will allow the ARB to establish, as well as change, its own rules. I like it because it is simple, and also sets out how the rules are to be changed (e.g., ARB members write verbs that will run with ARB perms.) Both Xythian's and yduJ's petitions are not incompatible, just that they're weaker and only establish the `initial' scenario. -------------------------- Message 39 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Sun Nov 14 13:01:21 1993 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Gru (#122), *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986), *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812), and *Petition:Empower-ARB (#60888) Subject: Re: alternate petition I don't mind the idea of separating process from initial setup, but I think a lot is lost in Grump's proposal that is in yduJ's. And I'm not confident that if you split the issue into two petitions, both parts will get passed. So I'd rather see yduJ's passed and then modified later as needed. I also would still like to see a 1 month delay on enactment of rule changes by the ARB. I think there is no good reason for ARB policies to have to change instantly, and I think there is a lot of reason for them not to. Further, I find the idea of advance notice and possible blockage of rules changes WAY preferrable to the idea of impeaching one or more ARB people after the fact if you don't like an ARB ruling. I basically don't think the latter action is accurate, practical, or efficient. Both petitions need this fix, in my opinion. I'm still leaving my signature on yduJ's proposal because I think it's closest for now and I'll just lobby for change if it makes it in. Where Grump's proposal is so watered down as to do basically nothing intelligible but give the ARB free rule over LambdaMOO. I don't like that. --M -------------------------- Message 40 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Nov 24 01:38:58 1993 PST From: Blackbriar (#30119) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: ARB Notes. While I have no complaints with this petition, and in fact have signed it, I would like to note that the ARB Quota Board in question is a device I inherited from waffle and almost entirely rewrote. I maintain it, and have been adding new features to it on the fly fairly often recently. I don't mind making the hacks required by this petition, but I think it would have been nice (so I don't keep up with petitions, shoot me) if someone () had told me there was pending legislation regarding one of my objects. Just a bit of nicety tossed into a cruel, cruel world. Blackbriar -------------------------- Message 41 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Nov 24 08:39:33 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Comments While Bb might not have problems with this petition, I do. I realize I should have been making these comments way back when, but time etc... I don't like the absolute time limits set at midnight Lambda Time. I'd rather see relative time limits. E.g. two weeks from the time of the request, and so on. Considering that we have people from around the world, it just makes more sense to me. > 2) Enough votes have been cast for the request to either pass or > fail. In this case, the vote closes on 11:59:59pm LambdaMOO > Time on the day it gathers enough votes. It seems to me that this isn't enough time to allow someone to cast a late vote. Allowing for railroaded requests. I'd rather see it close 24 hours after it gathers enough votes, to allow enough time for someone to perhaps change the outcome who might have come in late. > Once voting for a request has closed, the "Voting Summary" that contains >the votes and justifications of each member as well as who abstained and who >did not respond (i.e. did not vote yes, no, or abstain) will be mailed both to >the requester AND *Public-ARB. I strongly oppose this. How can I be frank in my justification if I have to worry that the requester, or anyone for that matter, might take offense at what I said? I do not think any discussion, or justification, to the public about an individual's request is necessary. This quibble alone is enough to get me to not support this petition. > If a request is granted, then the amount of quota given is determined by >the smallest amount voted among the yes votes. As someone already pointed out, it would be real easy for someone to really throw in a monkey wrench. 6 votes yes for 20, one vote yes for 10, and the requestor gets 10? That seems wrong. I'd rather see an admittedly more complex mechanism, but perhaps more fair. I like the whole idea of the petition. I like the details of the petition except for what I outlined above. I want to see a petition like this pass. However, I just can't support this one with the parts in it that I pointed out. Dred (On the Eleventh Edge) -------------------------- Message 42 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Nov 24 09:55:39 1993 PST From: Xythian (#24436) To: Bleys (#49925) and *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: Comments 1) I feel it is important to have an absolute time that the voting closes, not have it vary all over the place depending on when someone last voted. However, you do have a point and when I revise it, I'll make it midnight the next day (instead of the same day). 2) If you want to be frank and don't want someone to see it, post it to the list. I feel the comments should be public, but not the discussion. 3) This is perhaps why I plan on revising it. The original idea was that the person would have to back up why they voted much less, however, perhaps a new method is called for. I had a more complex method, it was no more fair than this method. I am taking suggestions... -------------------------- Message 43 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Dec 14 17:44:12 1993 PST From: Rydwi (#58310) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Petition #55802 Please read and consider petition #55802 regarding ARB elections. /Rydwi. -------------------------- Message 44 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Fri Dec 17 06:10:49 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: notes All sorts of little English errors; the meaning is generally clear, though. The ARB currently works effectively without sponsorship, and this petition has a requirement that requests be sponsored within two days. I guess either the ARB can vote to delete this section, if the petition passes, or we can just consider the ARB Quota Board's automatic forward of petition requests a sponsorship from Blackbriar (or whoever owns the quota board). I don't like the midnight rules. First you say that discussion on the list constitutes reason to extend the voting period, then you seem to say an explicit "delay" action is required. I'm confused. Under the new quota system, the clause about "more than 100 quota" doesn't make sense; I'm hoping that the ARB will decide on some rough approximation factor for quota-point-to-kilobytes conversion, and we can just translate the 100 figure. I also agree with Mickey's statement that two weeks is too short for changing the rules. I'll probably sign the petition anyway and hope that the ARB will take time out from its busy quota flood to make changes. The vagueness of the requirements for closing disturb me, though. -------------------------- Message 45 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Fri Dec 17 19:37:48 1993 PST From: Xythian (#24436) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Petitions.... Well, I'd like to rewrite this to take into account the new quota rules and various Good Suggestions, however: This petition is only 20 signatures from becoming a ballot, and I'd really hate to just kill it and risk general apathy (and the time limit) just stopping it cold. On the other, with its current, um, flaws, it may not even pass if it came to ballot. I'm putting it up to you. What is your opinion? Should this petition get rewritten, do you think such changes would generate 1) enough signatures to come to ballot and 2) avoid it not getting shot down inna voting phase? I'm leaning towards rewriting it now, but... -------------------------- Message 46 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Fri Dec 17 22:04:49 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: rewriting this petition I consider #60888 a 'rewrite' of this petition. #60888 is fairly simple, lets the ARB set its rules quickly if there's basic agreement on the ARB, and will allow (finally) the ARB to actually GRANT quota. -------------------------- Message 47 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Mon Jan 17 22:49:36 1994 PST From: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Open Ballot #47986 Ready for Voting Petition #47986 has received enough signatures to transform it into open Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): `ARB Voting Rule Restructuring', which is now available for voting. Type `read #47986' to see the text of the proposal and then `vote yes on #47986' to cast your vote in favor of it, `vote no on #47986' to cast your vote against it, or `abstain on #47986' to stop hearing about it. Voting on this ballot will close on Monday, January 31, at 10:49 pm, LambdaMOO Standard Time; until then, you can change your vote as often as you wish. You can read (and contribute to) commentary on this proposal on the mailing list named *Ballot:ARB-Rules; type `help mail' for details. -------------------------- Message 48 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Jan 18 01:55:28 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: I voted No It's not obvious to me what problem this is trying to solve. Each of the items specified in "Objectives" is a Tactic, not a Problem Description. It's obvious that each of the subsequent items offers a corresponding implementation of these tactics, but it's not obvious to me why these tactics are a priori virtuous. There is a lot of detailed mechanism here with no provision for public oversight. The ARB still has no charter as to why it should make its decisions, and I am uncomfortable with giving it greater direct powers in the absence of such direction. There is insufficient mechanism built into the system for a ruling of the ARB to be challenged. The time limits are too short to permit the petition system to usefully intervene. Waiting for an ARB election as a way of addressing grievances is likewise unsatisfactory. Also, though of lesser importance, I think the time limits should be a fixed offset from the event which set them in motion; I don't think things should come due at midnight-ish. Anyway, I voted No for these reasons. I hope others will join me. --M -------------------------- Message 49 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Jan 18 05:56:56 1994 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: Mickey (#52413) and *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Problems > It's not obvious to me what problem this is trying to solve. Each > of the items specified in "Objectives" is a Tactic, not a Problem > Description. It's obvious that each of the subsequent items > offers a corresponding implementation of these tactics, but it's > not obvious to me why these tactics are a priori virtuous. I'll attempt this. The first objective is the organization of ARB rules and structure. I've posted (elsewhere) about this before. *B:New-ARB gave public approval to "current (as of 5/3/1993) structures for quota-granting". The problem is that _no one_ knows what these current structures were (or are). This isn't just a problem of secrecy; the ARB's structures have always been loosely defined. The reason this is a problem is tied in with the second objective. The second objective is the independence of the ARB from the wizards, with regard to quota-granting. Under the current system, a quota grant goes something like this: Applicant makes a request, suggesting an amount. Board members who have the time and inclination look over applicant's owned objects. Board members vote yes or no or abstain. If a member votes yes, e also votes for an amount, which is often the suggested amount but may be very different. And then at some point, a wizard may decide that an applicant has enough of a yes-vs-no margin to get more quota. The wizard will then eyeball the voted amounts to get a rough average, or use the lowest number given, or pester ARB members to change their voted amounts so that there's a clearer consensus, or whatever. On the other hand, an ARB member may decide that the applicant isn't going to make it, and will remove the request from the board. In either case, a member (usually Dred or Blackbriar, although yoof has started already) will write a letter to the applicant summarizing positives and negatives mentioned in ARB discussion. Um... in a society in which the wizards supposedly aren't making social decisions, this business of estimating acceptance and amounts seems incongruous at best. So, in order to continue to move social responsibility away from the wizards and toward the public and their elected representatives, this ballot has been written (a) to define ARB procedures, thus eliminating the need for wizardly judgement calls, and (b) to make ARB decisions automatic, thus eliminating the need for wizardly action at all. The second is largely a formality, given the success of the first; it saves the wizards from having to type a command now and then. The third objective is to simplify modification of the ARB's rules in the future, I expect just because the petition system is too slow and unwieldy to make minor changes (e.g., changing the numbers). > There is a lot of detailed mechanism here with no provision for > public oversight. The ARB still has no charter as to why it > should make its decisions, and I am uncomfortable with giving it > greater direct powers in the absence of such direction. Again, this is simply a matter of letting the ARB make quota grants directly, rather than requiring wizards to follow discussion, track voting, and make decisions about quota amounts. It doesn't really open up the door for totalitarian rule. > There is insufficient mechanism built into the system for a ruling > of the ARB to be challenged. The time limits are too short to > permit the petition system to usefully intervene. Waiting for an > ARB election as a way of addressing grievances is likewise > unsatisfactory. I'm not sure what kind of ruling you'd want to challenge here. Could you give some hypothetical scenarios? > Also, though of lesser importance, I think the time limits should > be a fixed offset from the event which set them in motion; I don't > think things should come due at midnight-ish. I actually agree with you here, but I don't consider this or your other objections strong enough to warrant a no vote. -------------------------- Message 50 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Jan 18 08:12:59 1994 PST From: Xythian (#24436) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: I voted No The problems this petition is trying to solve are: (Well, it is a ballot now, anyway) 1) The ARB's voting rules and structure and probably completely unknown to most people. They know vaugly what they are being evaluated on, but not how. This sets down rules to stop the somewhat haphazard way of deciding when a vote is done that is used now. It sets down rules to govern how MUCH quota is given in the event of different amounts from different ARB members. Currently, this is pretty much up to the wizard granting it. In essence, it resolves the currently ambigious parts of the voting process. 2) It forces the ARB to debate and talk about policy changes in public. Right now, the ARB could just decide that it will only grant quota requests to people that have a letter "r" in their name and nobody would know. 3) It releases the ARB from the old bonds it has to the wizards. There is NO REASON for wizards to have to do the actual quota grant. Currently, the wizards just act as puppets to the ARB wrt quota requests. This step is eliminated and quota is granted by the ARB. I don't see how it gives the ARB any more power. Nothing is changed, and in reality, the ARB could make these changes without public consent because currently they can set their rules to whatever they want. I think it is important for it get public approval. Uh, by "nothing is changed" I meant "no power change takes place". The ARB still only grants quota, it cannot take it away. If anything, it takes away power by forcing decisions to be in the public eye. Currently, when the ARB does not grant a request, it is just kept all quiet. No reasons have to be provided or anything. WRT a system of checks and balances: It was my understanding that the dispute system could handle that. Bring up a dispute with Quota (who would stand for the entire group). -------------------------- Message 51 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Jan 18 11:58:30 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: Problems I don't agree that these were the only or best solutions to the problems Joe stated. I am irritated that there was not a public discussion which began with a statement of the issues and heard suggestions from people about how to proceed. I tried to make suggestions a while back and they were not heeded. I don't agree that giving the ARB direct powers or the ability to change its own rules is a good thing, in the absence of a mechanism for challenging those rules. The only sense in which it might be is the one that says "these are reasonable people who wouldn't abuse the huge gaping holes in the web of control", and I don't like that basis as one for establishing government. Xythian says: > 2) It forces the ARB to debate and talk about policy changes in > public. Right now, the ARB could just decide that it will only > grant quota requests to people that have a letter "r" in their name > and nobody would know. All you've changed is the "nobody would know" thing. In practice, I don't expect "abuses" to be nearly as clearcut, and so I don't expect the petition system to accomodate intervention. Indeed, I expect that when someone tries to write a petition to correct a flawed rules change in the ARB, people will say "we're not supposed to be writing petitions about that any more; we gave up that power to the ARB. If you don't like that change, then vote to rescind the ARB's power to regulate itself." And that will seem too extreme, so nothing will happen. This has already happened in some ways with Mediation. My problem is that as a matter of law, this petition doesn't forbid that. All it does is give the ARB license to do just that and to require people to watch helpless while they do. I hope that I will not find myself later misquoted as suggesting that the ARB will act dishonorably. They, of course, might. But I consider it unlikely. My problem is that they may act within a range that they consider "acceptable" but that is a gray area. And I feel that both the petition system and the ARB election system are way too blunt as clubs for the general populace to be left with to do fine tuning. --M -------------------------- Message 52 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Jan 18 17:12:32 1994 PST From: Puff (#1449) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: I voted No. Xythian said: > 1) The ARB's voting rules and structure and probably completely unknown > to most people. They know vaugly what they are being evaluated on, > but not how. They know exactly what they're being evaluated on, or they haven't bothered to read 'help quota-policy' and 'help quota-advice'. I've made strenuous efforts to inform the public on the basis for the decisions - the aim being to help them come to the ARB with the best chance of getting quota. > This sets down rules to stop the somewhat haphazard way of deciding > when a vote is done that is used now. The vote is not haphazard at the moment; the current policy is well-established. At least three yes votes are necessary to grant a request. A single no vote is considered serious enough that further debate is necessary, although a single no vote is not enough to overrule four or five votes. > It sets down rules to govern how MUCH quota is given in the event of > different amounts from different ARB members. This does need to be clarified; currently it's established practice to take the lowest common denominator, with debate and discussion serving to moderate wildly divergent requests (you vote for 100, I vote for 1 to spite you - that kinda stuff doesn't happen). This isn't too vague, and could easily be handled via the standard ARB policies for making/changing policy. > It forces the ARB to debate and talk about policy changes in public. I actually like this; I'd like to have more discussion of the reasons behind policy, and energy expended to refine policy. I don't think that other provisions in this ballot are worth it, though (which is why I didn't sign it), and I think that this ballot should definitely define the ARB's "mandate". > Uh, by "nothing is changed" I meant "no power change takes place". > The ARB still only grants quota, it cannot take it away. The ARB has the power to take quota away (in theory), although I've argued very strongly that we have a mandate to do so (even in the case where a player offered to give up some quota because he wasn't using it and he wanted to help alleviate the bloat - it would have set what I consider a dangerous precedent). I suppose this is what I'm looking for, a mandate. I'd rather have something to define what the ARB *is* before we define how it is run. Puff -------------------------- Message 53 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Jan 18 18:50:59 1994 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: still don't like I wrote in message 41 on this list why I didn't really like this ballot. All those reasons remain. Xythian explained them, but I'm still not convinced. I still don't like absolute times. Midnight Lambda time is 3am for me, and I'm sure even worse for other people. True, any time that you pick will be bad for someone. And also true that relative times will mean that different requests will end at different times. But I still prefer relative. Oh, one new thing that was put in since the last time I read it: > Yes votes cannot be for an amount of quota that exceeds the request and > cannot be for less than half the request. This says to me that all a requestor has to do is ask for a huge amount. Then we have to give them at least half if they deserve any quota at all. We can deny that request, and make them go through another. But that all just seems silly. We should be able to give them whatever we feel they deserve. This includes more for people who are modest or just ask for some low amount (meaning they'll be back again in a week). There is still that part about the amount given being the smallest voted on, too. With the above, this will be minimized at half if there is disagreement amongst the members. Still seems silly. I also still don't like mailing our comments verbatim to the requestor when the vote is tallied. I like being frank. I don't want to have to worry that someone will get offended and harass me because I said their object was silly/themeless/etc. Sure, Xythian's response is to write that stuff to *arb directly rather than in my vote. But why should I write twice? One to the point and one all censored? Some members don't care that people hear what they say. But I do. I don't like insulting or offending people. Also, writing twice means bloat to me. *ARB is bloated enough. I also agree with just about everything Puff said in his post here. Mickey also brings up some good points about power. I think there's no need to worry about that, but it can't hurt to cover that some. I do think that the ARB process needs to be formalized and established. Especially it's mandate. I don't like this particular formalization, and am therefore voting no. -------------------------- Message 54 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Jan 18 19:39:36 1994 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: Puff (#1449) and *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: I voted No. > The vote is not haphazard at the moment; the current policy is > well-established. At least three yes votes are necessary to grant > a request. A single no vote is considered serious enough that > further debate is necessary, although a single no vote is not > enough to overrule four or five votes. Uh, who defines "further debate"? Lately I've waited a few times before granting a quota request that had three yes votes, once at the suggestion of someone who had voted "yes" already. It depends partly on the enthusiasm of the voters; I generally don't go ahead in the case where three people say "I don't like a lot of things about eir work, but I guess it's good enough." Now you say "well, you haven't been following policy" and I'll say "what policy?" I've never seen a set policy for this stuff; policy has evolved gradually in the hands of those ARB members who are active. This may not be a bad state of affairs, but it requires wizards to figure out what the ARB wants, which is what this ballot is intended to address. > This does need to be clarified; currently it's established > practice to take the lowest common denominator, with debate and > discussion serving to moderate wildly divergent requests Again, the debate and discussion are often prompted by me or another wizard after a frustrated attempt to make consensus out of individual votes cast over a stretch of time. And, no, I haven't been taking the lowest value (let alone the LCD, heh); rather, I tend toward the mean, or sometimes just ignore a vote that's way off from the rest, or ask the oddball voter if e thinks a certain amount would be okay. This of course ignores a batch of final decisions made after you sent the post I'm responding to, in which an ARB member made the final decision by writing the acceptance letters for some cases that seemed cloudy. Re mandate: Sounds good. Who wants to write it? -------------------------- Message 55 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Tue Jan 18 22:38:57 1994 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: a simpler petition If you don't like the complexities of this ballot and yet you think the ARB mandate needs to be formalized and established, please vote no on this ballot, and sign #60888. -------------------------- Message 56 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Jan 19 13:31:37 1994 PST From: Xythian (#24436) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: a simpler petition There is no way to make sure #60888 passes, and #60888 sets NO RULES. All it does is define power. Not the mention the fact that it mentions the creation of a new character (explicitly, no way to not do it) when there is one that owns the quota properties and such now. It says nothing about voting rules and any sort of restrictions or anything. Additonally, it doesn't really conflict with this ballot anyway. -------------------------- Message 57 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Jan 19 14:34:56 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: a simpler petition I agree that #60888 has problems, too. Probably more than this petition. I already have a pending petition or would write my own replacement. What I'd like to see is something like: - All requests for quota will be publicly readable. - No request for quota will be acted upon (granted or denied) for the first 72 hours after it is submitted, to permit the public an opportunity to notice a request and speak out on it. - The ARB is permitted to discuss a request for quota privately, including sending private mail to the requestor. All final responses to requests for quota will be publicly readable. - The rules for how quota is determined will be publicly inspectable. - The rules may be changed by the ARB on a 2/3 vote of its members, but such changes will not go into effect for 30 days (i.e., 720 hours) after a notice of impending rule change is publicly posted, permitting the public an opportunity to create and ratify a petition overriding any rule changes. - All requests must be granted or denied for exactly the amount of quota requested with the following exception: Any ARB member may propose a change to the amount of quota requested as part of the ARB's internal discussion. If that suggestion is approved by a majority vote, the proposal thus modified may be granted or denied instead. If (and only if) the change in quota passes AND the resulting proposal is ultimately approved, the names of those having voted to change the amount will be published to a public forum, along with a statement of the reasons. - Each member of the ARB will be directly empowered to grant quota without the need for wizardly intervention. Such grants will be logged. Use of this power in a way that is not consistent with ARB voting is actionable under mediation by any member of the ARB or any affected third party. -------------------------- Message 58 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Jan 19 14:54:25 1994 PST From: Kilik (#2819) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: mickey's proposal w00f-1: Why should requests be public? What is the "right to know other players' requests" you are invoking? w00f-2: 72-hour rule. Yeah! Though I prefer shorter, say 36. w00f-3: ARB, or anyone can send mail anytime anyways. Right now only successful requests are posted to *public-arb. I would think unsuccessful applicants would rather not have their results posted there. w00f-4: Rules for quota granting are there in help quota etc. w00f-5: Which rules? Internal arb rules or quota-granting criteria? w00f-6: Exact amount rule - why is the current situation a problem? Players are often granted somewhat less than they ask. Would you rather have them submit another request for a lower amount as soon as the first request fails? This sounds inefficient. The mechanism you propose for changing the award amount is very cumbersome considering a majority of arb members (8) need to agree on the amount. Most requests have only about 8 members voting in total. Again here what is the "right to know about other players' requests" that you are trying to establish? I'm not sure that this isn't an illiberal right. w00f-7: individual empowerment to grant quota -- this might be better done via a wizardly verb on a quota-granting object that takes as inputs arb votes. w00f! -------------------------- Message 59 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Jan 19 15:19:16 1994 PST From: Puff (#1449) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Policies (Re: I voted No.) JoeFeedback says: >> A single no vote is considered serious enough that further debate >> is necessary, although a single no vote is not enough to overrule four >> or five votes. > > Uh, who defines "further debate"? The ARB does. I just checked, and if you'll refer to message 1326 on *arb, you'll see a summary of the voting policy. More formal statements of this policy were archived offline along with all of the early *ARB mail. In any event, to summarize: At least 3 yes votes are necessary to pass. If there is 1 no vote, 4 yes votes are necessary to pass. If there are multiple no votes, a 2/3 majority is necessary to pass. The quota approved is the maximum agreed on by all votes (i.e. at least as much as the lowest vote). > Lately I've waited a few times before granting a quota request that > had three yes votes, once at the suggestion of someone who had voted > "yes" already. It depends partly on the enthusiasm of the voters; I Lately we've just switched over to a new quota system, and we've had a backlog of over 20 requests. > Now you say "well, you haven't been following policy" and I'll say > "what policy?" I've never seen a set policy for this stuff; policy > has evolved gradually in the hands of those ARB members who are > active. Then you haven't been paying attention. The original policy was restated in message 1326 on *arb. Further changes were made under the rules of this policy, using the ARB voting verbs, and hence the policy was automatically posted to *arb. >> This does need to be clarified; currently it's established >> practice to take the lowest common denominator, with debate and >> discussion serving to moderate wildly divergent requests > > Again, the debate and discussion are often prompted by me or another > wizard after a frustrated attempt to make consensus out of individual > votes cast over a stretch of time. "Often?" Hardly. Only in the recent flood of quota requests has there been much uncertainty. > Re mandate: Sounds good. Who wants to write it? Ask me again when my life isn't so crowded. If somebody wants to sponsor such a beastie, I'll help them draft it and put it forward as a petition, but I don't have the spare time to gather information on what should be in it, let alone stump for signers/voters. Puff -------------------------- Message 60 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Wed Jan 19 19:38:44 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: mickey's proposal Kilik, 1. I start with the assumption that the entire process should be public and decided to provide an exemption only where motivation had been given for one. My main concern about private requests is that the quota which is given out is effectively a public resource, and I feel that either the granting or denying of it is a public matter. The more of the process that is publicly visible, the easier it is to police abuses, subtle discrimination, confusion, or whatever. 2. We didn't disagree here. 3. I think it would be educational for people to see reasons that grants were denied. Moreover, I think this would keep the ARB honest by permitting cases where "equivalent" cases are treated differently to come to light--assuming that ever happens; I can't tell without a public record. I don't mind if the discussion gets personal or undiplomatic internally, but rejection is a matter of public policy and things should not be rejected for reasons that are not part of the public record. 4. I wasn't denying that the rules for granting are there in help quota. I mostly just meant to give some teeth to that. 5. I think that any change to ARB rules which were voted by the public should be subject to public scrutiny before they are changed. I don't think it's worthwhile for us to say "The ARB must work like such-and-so, but the ARB can feel free to decide otherwise." 6. I don't really care about the specific rule I suggested so much as I care that the rule now in this petition we're voting on is stupid. Granting the least anyone votes give too much power to one person. I think that by making a majority vote on a particular number, you force consensus. I'd be content, for example, to stipulate a quorum and say "a majority of those voting". 7. The idea of a collective verb that counts votes and then acts is fine with me--nice and clean, actually. I like it. I'm actually not fussy on this point. I probably should have just said I thought that some mechanism that didn't involve per-incident wizardly intervention and that enabled the ARB to grant quota on its own was sufficient. --M -------------------------- Message 61 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Jan 20 08:46:48 1994 PST From: Sadric (#46622) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: problems.. Shall we also note that, with the passing of yduJ's petition restructuring the quota policies, that at least one portion of this petition is inconsistant. -------------------------- Message 62 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Thu Jan 20 19:35:08 1994 PST From: splat (#59277) To: Mickey (#52413) and *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Re: mickey's proposal > Date: Wed Jan 19 19:38:44 1994 PST > From: Mickey (#52413) > To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) > Subject: Re: mickey's proposal > > Kilik, > > 1. I start with the assumption that the entire process should be > public and decided to provide an exemption only where motivation > had been given for one. My main concern about private requests is > that the quota which is given out is effectively a public > resource, and I feel that either the granting or denying of it is > a public matter. The more of the process that is publicly > visible, the easier it is to police abuses, subtle discrimination, > confusion, or whatever. I've always subscribed to the school of thought that says, if you can't get people you can trust in office, the system is beyond hope and should be scrapped and replaced with something even more stupid and pointless. If possible, anyway. In any case, it really isn't anyone's business who gets turned down for quota, public resource or not. If they think it was that unjust they'll mouth off about it themselves. No need for spam, embarrassment, etc. when someone just doesn't make the cut, and accepts it and tries to improve. Now, on the other hand, the current system has successful quota requests registering, which is exactly right. Voting results should maybe be given to the requestor, but not directly publicized, as this is something of private info, especially if it involves -r verbs and whatnot. > 3. I think it would be educational for people to see reasons that > grants were denied. Moreover, I think this would keep the ARB > honest by permitting cases where "equivalent" cases are treated > differently to come to light--assuming that ever happens; I can't > tell without a public record. I don't mind if the discussion gets > personal or undiplomatic internally, but rejection is a matter of > public policy and things should not be rejected for reasons that > are not part of the public record. You make a point about educational value/public review etc, but, i for one really don't have 24 hours a day to spend looking over the shoulders of public officials even IRL much less here, and of course there would often be exposure of private data if everything were put down honestly to a public record. I just couldn't support that. > 4. I wasn't denying that the rules for granting are there in help > quota. I mostly just meant to give some teeth to that. Stating it twice wouldn't give it 'teeth'. > 5. I think that any change to ARB rules which were voted by the > public should be subject to public scrutiny before they are > changed. I don't think it's worthwhile for us to say "The ARB > must work like such-and-so, but the ARB can feel free to decide > otherwise." Well we don't disagree abou that, but then again that's a VERY tricky issue, trying to set rules without straitjacketing the ARB. I don't really think we should specify the precise rules at all for voting, the ARB is a small enough body it doesn't really need them. We need to specify the basic criteria, but not the minutiae of day-to-day ARB procedure. splat -------------------------- Message 63 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Mon Jan 31 22:49:36 1994 PST From: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) Subject: Voting closes on ballot #47986: Final Results The voting period for Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): `ARB Voting Rule Restructuring' has ended. The final vote count is as follows: In favor: 207 Against: 90 Abstaining: 311 The proposal has passed and will be implemented by the wizards as soon as possible. -------------------------- Message 64 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Mon Jan 31 23:06:30 1994 PST From: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) and *Wizard-List (#6428) Subject: Ballot statistics A total of 1809 eligible voters logged in during the ballot period. Of these, 608 people or 33% cast votes of any sort; 297 people or 16% cast `yes' or `no' votes. -------------------------- Message 65 from *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): Date: Fri Dec 2 23:00:33 1994 PST From: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) To: *Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986) and *Wizard-List (#6428) The wizard Heathcliff has finished implementing ballot Ballot:ARB-Rules (#47986): `ARB Voting Rule Restructuring'. --------------------------