Ah, you are right. I was thinking only of the case where there are only two options and no overlap between old and new members, in which case your proposal is the same as my simpler one. (Don't worry about the math; voting systems are actually a minor interest of mine, and in fact you should all be glad I haven't gone so far as to propose some sort of Condorcet method for deciding contentious issues!)
I think your proposal is probably the better one. So my proposed addendum to the Principles is then:
Quote:
8. a. There is no restriction on further discussion of questions that have already been decided; anyone may re-open a discussion, and is encouraged to do so if he or she thinks that a relevant point was not adequately considered.
b. A decision made by silent agreement of the members may be changed by an explicit unanimous consensus or a majority vote of the active members.
c. A decision made by voting may be changed if a new counting of old and new votes would alter the outcome or, if the active membership has changed drastically and previously unconsidered arguments on the subject have been made, by a calculation system in which the votes of all the active members together have the same weight as the votes of all now inactive members.
d. A decision made by an explicit unanimous agreement may be changed if previoulsy unconsidered arguments on the subject have been made and the active members come to a new explicit unanimous consensus.
A corollary to these rules is that the group should try to involve as many active members in such re-decisions as possible, for which reason semi-active members should be specially invited to speak on such points.
|