Kevin, I think this proposal makes perfect sense, and is very well constructed. Two questions/comments:
Voting. Members of the subsequent WorldCon? Why not CURRENT and subsequent, considering the business being voted on was originated at the current WorldCon?
Interpretive statement. If indeed ratification is opened to a ballot vote, I would recommend the proposer of any item which will be subject to Popular Ratification be required to include, with their motion, a plain English Interpretive Statement explaining the motion, which would be included on the voting ballot. (The State of NJ uses this system for Ballot Questions, as often the issues on the ballot are so convoluted that a normal person can't make heads nor tails of them.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-06-01 09:04 pm (UTC)Voting. Members of the subsequent WorldCon? Why not CURRENT and subsequent, considering the business being voted on was originated at the current WorldCon?
Interpretive statement. If indeed ratification is opened to a ballot vote, I would recommend the proposer of any item which will be subject to Popular Ratification be required to include, with their motion, a plain English Interpretive Statement explaining the motion, which would be included on the voting ballot. (The State of NJ uses this system for Ballot Questions, as often the issues on the ballot are so convoluted that a normal person can't make heads nor tails of them.)