![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Weren't These Lakes in Imperial Earth?
Jan. 4th, 2007 09:19 amBy coincidence, I was just reading the recent National Geographic article on the Saturn system when this article about methane lakes on Titan crossed my e-mail.
Jan. 4th, 2007
Range Voting
Jan. 4th, 2007 12:19 pmThe folks advocating Range Voting contacted WSFS (actually, the WSFS webmaster, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sfrose) lobbying WSFS to change its voting system from the Instant Runoff Voting system we currently use for site selection and the Hugo Awards. Sharon told them how our rules work and suggested that if they want to change them, they come to WSFS business meetings and propose and debate the changes there, like all other rule changes. The advocate's response, in my opinion, amounted to, "Our proposal is so obviously Right that we shouldn't have to do all that hard, expensive work. You should change your rules because we tell you to do so."
I often tell people who come to me with rules-change proposals, "If you think it's worthwhile, come and submit it yourself. I'll help you with all of the technicalities to the best of my ability, but you have to make your own case, lobby people yourself, and get the votes by convincing people." Most of the time, this discourages them -- democracy is hard work! But sometimes we get people who are willing to work and debate, and sometimes we even get workable changes and improvements.
WSFS rules are intentionally designed to be resistant to change; however, they can be changed if people work hard enough at it. But it's not enough to just lobby a Board of Directors or subvert the Chairman; you have to convince the members.
sfrose) lobbying WSFS to change its voting system from the Instant Runoff Voting system we currently use for site selection and the Hugo Awards. Sharon told them how our rules work and suggested that if they want to change them, they come to WSFS business meetings and propose and debate the changes there, like all other rule changes. The advocate's response, in my opinion, amounted to, "Our proposal is so obviously Right that we shouldn't have to do all that hard, expensive work. You should change your rules because we tell you to do so."I often tell people who come to me with rules-change proposals, "If you think it's worthwhile, come and submit it yourself. I'll help you with all of the technicalities to the best of my ability, but you have to make your own case, lobby people yourself, and get the votes by convincing people." Most of the time, this discourages them -- democracy is hard work! But sometimes we get people who are willing to work and debate, and sometimes we even get workable changes and improvements.
WSFS rules are intentionally designed to be resistant to change; however, they can be changed if people work hard enough at it. But it's not enough to just lobby a Board of Directors or subvert the Chairman; you have to convince the members.
Australian Domination
Jan. 4th, 2007 05:24 pmI've just watched Australia put the finishing touches on destroying England 5-0 to sweep the Ashes Series international cricket match. This is only the second time in the long history of this England-Australia rivalry that a team has swept the series 5-0. And Australia didn't just win, they dominated England.
While Cheryl supports England [because it's actually England & Wales], she bowed to the inevitable and gave her stuffed kangaroo a brush ("Sweep!") to hold while we watched this fifth test.
Cheryl and I split the cost of the DirectTV coverage and I got to see about half of the games, and I'm glad we did. I got to see some historic moments in cricket, and I think I now understand the attraction of the game. Oh, great, yet another sport to distract me.
While Cheryl supports England [because it's actually England & Wales], she bowed to the inevitable and gave her stuffed kangaroo a brush ("Sweep!") to hold while we watched this fifth test.
Cheryl and I split the cost of the DirectTV coverage and I got to see about half of the games, and I'm glad we did. I got to see some historic moments in cricket, and I think I now understand the attraction of the game. Oh, great, yet another sport to distract me.