Received: from mail-qc0-f185.google.com ([209.85.216.185]:45638) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WnYQq-0003vW-Q1; Thu, 22 May 2014 12:13:54 -0700 Received: by mail-qc0-f185.google.com with SMTP id r5sf980908qcx.22 for ; Thu, 22 May 2014 12:13:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=8oHFWknvb/2+8jqtRHHdUtwOj6acZmR5Cwbi84o4+0Q=; b=HkvxNrcz2d1VGi6LfUjIVeMSKKbst0qTv6Qd5r3kFIRXRGVGUg4qhX8+7t66SiFP2Z GkdQb6qMIhsm/x55reXGm/OjzHkBq6wAEE2lRe6yMgIXGnpkAocE/IsvKEjOok4KzqrQ ZgagTchyE3M19h63jrTDztJD2+SExPc8Y/w4Kt9BU001QrdCULyKN5l7MWq+VsdlWrlN H2ewYSUSzx6W9Mr4pLI1xGkG9V4CjZ00wCrtd09PKxToLadgRSPIK1AoXJ82zPX1vNBZ 9ckvhw+L0lZrEb1kzE3K7cvs65g+3aYRVbgGJtvXvsLy+gSR5ayIN1gywwgvDpw+OGVM OLYQ== X-Received: by 10.50.6.103 with SMTP id z7mr524137igz.11.1400786009968; Thu, 22 May 2014 12:13:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.73.195 with SMTP id n3ls2733052igv.40.canary; Thu, 22 May 2014 12:13:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.67.30.197 with SMTP id kg5mr26955278pad.36.1400786009670; Thu, 22 May 2014 12:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmfepo103.cox.net (eastrmfepo103.cox.net. [68.230.241.215]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id x7si121528qcd.3.2014.05.22.12.13.29 for ; Thu, 22 May 2014 12:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.215; Received: from eastrmimpo209 ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo103.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.15 201-2260-151-145-20131218) with ESMTP id <20140522191329.QHCX31158.eastrmfepo103.cox.net@eastrmimpo209> for ; Thu, 22 May 2014 15:13:29 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.248.61]) by eastrmimpo209 with cox id 57DU1o00S1LDWBL017DUWr; Thu, 22 May 2014 15:13:29 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020207.537E4C59.003C,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=H/cFNZki c=1 sm=1 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:17 a=FojzyqKkZIMA:10 a=5n-0ZN4OXN0A:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=n2-rbH4cD-UBBbT76ZwA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <537E4C5D.4040508@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 15:13:33 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] Vote proxying? References:

<20140520164001.GC9283@mercury.ccil.org> <54zU1o01956Cr6M014zVdY> In-Reply-To: <54zU1o01956Cr6M014zVdY> X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Content-Length: 2376 On 5/22/2014 12:59 PM, And Rosta wrote: > John Cowan, On 20/05/2014 17:40: >>> Is it legitimate to proxy one's vote on bpfk matters? >> >> The LLG has traditionally accepted them, and the BPFK is a committee >> of the LLG, formally speaking, so I see no reason why not. >> >> John Cowan, LLG parliamentarian > > In that case, I proxy mine to Xorxes. Experience has shown me that even > in the rare cases where I don't agree with him from the outset, I soon > come to realize that he was right after all. > > I'd also like to point out that if enough bpfk members did likewise, the > bpfk business could be zipped through without unnecessary delay and > debate. Either decisions could simply be referred to Xorxes or else we > could calculate how many Nays it takes to block a consensus and begin by > counting contraxorxesian votes; only if there were sufficient > contraxorxesian votes to block a consensus would it be necessary to > struggle to find some other solution. Since having enough votes hasn't ever been a problem, this is not an issue. When it gets to the final consensus decision, probably the votes that will count will be the votes of people that actually reviewed the final baseline. A proxy pretty much is an admission that you didn't. So why should your vote count? The original view was that two independent negative votes would be sufficient to make it not a consensus vote, regardless of how many pro votes there are. But if past history is the case, the jatna will require the no votes to provide actual reasons, and perhaps a set of conditions under which they would accept consensus, or the jatna would just throw the negative vote out (or throw the negative voter off the BPFK). Robin has near dictatorial powers when it comes to getting the job done. (The Board/membership has the option to reject the BPFK work as well. But the odds of that happening, if we finally get done after all these years, is pretty small.) lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.