tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8878693478865034057.post171498600086923415..comments2021-08-27T22:46:21.666-07:00Comments on INTERNET COMMITTEE: Starting outline for state caucus forums and motionsJudge Brennanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834815547239620144noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8878693478865034057.post-41659253489957810642013-03-07T09:51:48.923-08:002013-03-07T09:51:48.923-08:00The state caucuses should be able to override any ...The state caucuses should be able to override any default parameters that are established.<br /><br />Is it more proper for the Internet Committee or Rules Committee to establish the default rules for the State Caucuses? In the absence of such guidance, however, the Internet Committee should be expected to establish guidelines typical of existing well managed forums.<br /><br />I would certainly entertain discussion on whether the default behavior should be related to Caucus size. I would offer ten delegates as the threshold where a second is required to open a motion.<br /><br />If we decide to allow multiple motions to be open at once, I would also suggest that multiple seconds may be appropriate if a caucus grows to where more than three motions are regularly open at once.utesfan100https://www.blogger.com/profile/12114006842609671124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8878693478865034057.post-91855338276013390212013-03-07T09:24:38.971-08:002013-03-07T09:24:38.971-08:00As I understand, the question of state caucus busi...As I understand, the question of state caucus business and deliberation is fully at the discretion of the caucus. Why would the Rules Committee be involved?<br /><br />Regarding a Captain delegating authority, I agree.<br /><br />Regarding the seconding of motions, I would suggest that this be an option determined by the caucus and configurable by the caucus Captain.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05228352071474170887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8878693478865034057.post-64513826087077533212013-03-06T12:15:01.104-08:002013-03-06T12:15:01.104-08:00The outline by Delegate Tape allows for the consid...The outline by Delegate Tape allows for the consideration of multiple topics in parallel, which I support. I do think that only one motion per topic should be allowed at any given time.<br /><br />I reiterate my primary concerns regarding this outline, as I presented them in the original post by Judge Brennan.<br /><br /><i>The most significant issues I have with this proposal is the lack of a need for a second, and the lack of an ability for the State Caucus Captain, or other officer created by the State Caucus to serve in their absence, to rule a motion out of order.<br /><br />This should be a question for the Rules Committee to decide, ideally after an Advisory Committee of the Whole is formed to discusses the idea at the existing Delegate Forum, to form a basis for the Rules Committee to gauge the various views of the Delegates.</i><br /><br />I note that, for the short term, these processes can be managed manually by the administrators of the Forum, which is presently under construction. The guidelines on the test state caucus are intended to allow for a manually managed protocol that addresses the concerns I outline. <br /><br />http://forum.conventionusa.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=22<br /><br />This is designed to empower state caucus captains to manage their own state caucus forum, while making the internet committee available where states caucus captains are unable to regularly manage the caucus.utesfan100https://www.blogger.com/profile/12114006842609671124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8878693478865034057.post-6481263227236059212013-03-06T12:00:53.338-08:002013-03-06T12:00:53.338-08:00Observed Differences in State Caucus Designs:
The ...<b>Observed Differences in State Caucus Designs:</b><br />The aim here is to outline observed differences between the State Caucus design described by Judge Brennan on February 19th and this outline intended to express these designs created by Delegate Tape.<br /><br /><a href="http://conventionusainternet.blogspot.com/2013/02/state-caucuses.html" rel="nofollow">State Caucuses</a><br /><a href="http://conventionusainternet.blogspot.com/2013/02/state-caucuses-continued.html" rel="nofollow">State Caucuses, Continued</a><br /><br />If Judge Brennan accepts this as an acceptable interpretation of his vision, I will close the posts started by him, and redirect this topic to this thread.<br /><br />I will be expressing my personal opinions in a separate comment.<br /><br /><b>Construct Hierarchy:</b><br />The Brennan hierarchy implies a STATE CAUCUS construct, and has FORUM and MOTION constructs directly subsidiary to the STATE CAUCUS construct. A TOPIC construct is defined subsidiary to the FORUM construct.<br /><br />The Tape hierarchy unifies the STATE CAUCUS and FORUM construct, and makes the MOTION construct subsidiary to the TOPIC construct.<br /><br /><b>FORUM and TOPIC Constructs:</b><br />The FORUM and TOPIC constructs of the two proposals are identical when available. The Brennan design closes these constructs when any MOTION is open, while the Tape design keeps these constructs available regardless of the state of any MOTION construct.<br /><br /><b>MOTION Construct</b><br />The processes for closing debate and voting differ only in the organization of the presentation, using a 72 hour voting period and a majority to close debate on a motion.<br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br />The only significant difference is that the Tape design allows for discussion of multiple MOTIONS at any given time, while the Brennan design allows an open MOTION to prempt all other Caucus business.utesfan100https://www.blogger.com/profile/12114006842609671124noreply@blogger.com