Creating proposals (Closed for comments)
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I voted on the freestyle wrap up proposal today...and I had the feeling that this kind of proposal should not be allowed to exist because it forces you to agree or disagree to two completely different ideas: changes in the presentation judging and the formation of a committee that will try to improve the judging rules after the rulebook is closed. I like the idea of the committee but I don't agree with some parts of the presentation proposal...I think this should be two separate proposals and I think there should be a general rule for the rulebook committee that prevents those kinds of proposals...What do you think about it? Maybe we could pass this to the general rulebook committee...
Comment
Marie,
I agree that separate ideas should not always be voted on it one proposal. For example, Kirsten was required to split her group limits and minimums proposal because she was dealing with two separate ideas. However, in this case, the proposal given only works as a whole package. Let me try to explain.
I see four different options for the presentation/performance part of the rulebook.
- Leave the section alone.
This is by far the worst option. The current rules are bad, defined in a confusing way, and have been shown to not work. - Accept the ice dancing rules proposal
These rules are a significant improvement to the current rules, but they are not perfect. However, without testing it is very hard to know exactly how they will work. - Create a freestyle judging committee to further develop and test freestyle rules
This is a great idea for the future, but we need an update now. If we only do this option, then all of the work done in this round of the rulebook committee was unsuccessful. - Accept the ice dancing rules proposal AND create a committee
By accepting the proposed rules, we have a place where we can work from to develop better rules. These rules may not be perfect, but that's why we would have the committee for further development. For me, this is the most logical and useful option.
I didn't include Tomas' idea here, because in my opinion it is not a polished enough idea. However, it has some really good parts to it and therefore should be developed further in the judging committee.
To me, creating the future committee only makes sense if we also accept some changes from this round of the rulebook committee! The creation of the committee alone is not a real step of progress without the new rules to work on. Thus to me, the proposal absolutely makes sense with both parts together, and I don't see a problem with it.
In the case of Kirsten's proposals, the two issues being put to voting can be voted on just as effectively separately.
In the case of the wrap-up proposal, separating the two issues does not work the same way as accepting them together, as I described above. I hope the difference can be understood.
Comment
Yes, when we aren't pressing up against the end of our time period, proposals should be kept separate so they can be discussed and developed on their own. Sometimes one proposal directly affects another, so it may make sense to package them together, but usually not. In those cases where one proposal effects a different one, there may not be time for one to finish the whole discussion/voting process first, so then it might make sense to offer packages with multiple choices. Our current system may only allow for Yes, No and Abstain, but if it can allow for A, B, C or similar that could work.