RE: [rights] Request for Agenda Item on Rights Concall Wed October 2

["M. Paramasivam" <parama@microsoft.com>]

--------------

Could you or other people on the list suggest what amendments or
changes they might want in the language of the Fair Voting rule? I
think constructive suggestions for language changes would be the
right approach.

-------------------

Fair enough. But let me think aloud alongside a bit.
 
I feel that the distinction between major and minor will degenerate into splitting hairs. So the first friendly amendment I propose is that we do not distinguish issues. All issues are the same. If we need to vote on them then they are major enough and should be treated accordingly.
 
Second, what we have then is a situation where it takes at least one week for any motion to be acted upon. This I think is really very long. So we should reduce that accordingly. While I do see Anne's (and others) points that  people have to fit their calls according to their travel and other plans, I think a balance can be struck.  So although I prefer twenty four hours, I believe forty eight ought to strike everyone as reasonable.
 
In the interest of clarification, I presume that motions can still be raised and can still pass without objection during the call itself  (provided we have quorum). Is that correct?  
Along these lines, are there guidelines to help us make motions that can pass with near-unanimity? For example, can just one objection result in the postponement of something that would pass anyway?
 
Thanks
--Parama