I'm not sure you understand. If the Business Meeting regulars are going to overturn the Chair every time s/he rules that way, we're doomed in any event. Furthermore, they will presumably vote down the proposed rule anyway so we'll never even get as far as you suggest.
I believe that you and the others who assume that the Usual Suspects will just behave in the most evil way possible are missing a point here. The reason they're using OTC is that there's no other reasonable choice given the way the rules are written. Furthermore, it takes a 2/3 vote to sustain OTCs (and a majority to overturn the Chair). While there are always hotheads, I believe that if the meeting has a reasonable alternative to OTC (it does not have it right now), it will use it. There will be people who may behave the way you say they will, but I do not believe that a supermajority of the attendees will act as willfully stupid as you seem to think they will.
Now here's practical politics: While I can see in principle the value of "get enough co-signers and you're immune" path, I think, based on the feedback from The List That Shall Not Be Named, that the proposal will fail of passage. The reaction of selected influential people of sheer horror that you could override the Business Meeting just by getting a bunch of signatures is such that they'd do everything they could (which is considerable) to block it, whereas a loosening of the rules that makes it easier to kill no-hope motions but gives those people a "hail Mary" attempt to persuade the meeting to give them a chance anyway is more likely to pass.
When I craft proposals, I have to consider not only what is ideologically sound, but what has a reasonable chance of passing. I don't like making proposals that I think have less than a one-third chance of getting through the meeting.
In short, given a chance, I believe that the members of the Business Meeting will act more fairly than they have been acting now. Remember that most of the people shouting Objection to Consideration are all on The List That Shall Not Be Named and even some of the people with which I disagree have concluded that we're over-using OTC. That makes a big difference.
And here's how important I would make this: I'll stake my chairmanship on it. If someone acts as willfully stupid as you suggest, I'll put it in these terms when making my case to overturn the appeal (unlike all other motions, the Chair is allowed to debate an Appeal): "The Chair feels sufficiently strongly about the ethics of this situation that should the meeting overturn the ruling of the Chair, the Chair will interpret it as a motion of No Confidence and will resign." Essentially, if a meeting wants to be that stupid, I want them to go on the record that they did a "runaway." I don't think they'll do it.
no subject
I believe that you and the others who assume that the Usual Suspects will just behave in the most evil way possible are missing a point here. The reason they're using OTC is that there's no other reasonable choice given the way the rules are written. Furthermore, it takes a 2/3 vote to sustain OTCs (and a majority to overturn the Chair). While there are always hotheads, I believe that if the meeting has a reasonable alternative to OTC (it does not have it right now), it will use it. There will be people who may behave the way you say they will, but I do not believe that a supermajority of the attendees will act as willfully stupid as you seem to think they will.
Now here's practical politics: While I can see in principle the value of "get enough co-signers and you're immune" path, I think, based on the feedback from The List That Shall Not Be Named, that the proposal will fail of passage. The reaction of selected influential people of sheer horror that you could override the Business Meeting just by getting a bunch of signatures is such that they'd do everything they could (which is considerable) to block it, whereas a loosening of the rules that makes it easier to kill no-hope motions but gives those people a "hail Mary" attempt to persuade the meeting to give them a chance anyway is more likely to pass.
When I craft proposals, I have to consider not only what is ideologically sound, but what has a reasonable chance of passing. I don't like making proposals that I think have less than a one-third chance of getting through the meeting.
In short, given a chance, I believe that the members of the Business Meeting will act more fairly than they have been acting now. Remember that most of the people shouting Objection to Consideration are all on The List That Shall Not Be Named and even some of the people with which I disagree have concluded that we're over-using OTC. That makes a big difference.
And here's how important I would make this: I'll stake my chairmanship on it. If someone acts as willfully stupid as you suggest, I'll put it in these terms when making my case to overturn the appeal (unlike all other motions, the Chair is allowed to debate an Appeal): "The Chair feels sufficiently strongly about the ethics of this situation that should the meeting overturn the ruling of the Chair, the Chair will interpret it as a motion of No Confidence and will resign." Essentially, if a meeting wants to be that stupid, I want them to go on the record that they did a "runaway." I don't think they'll do it.