Changes at "Behavior of the amendments"
Title (CatalĂ )
- +Behavior of the amendments
Title (English)
- +Behavior of the amendments
Title (Castellano)
- +Behavior of the amendments
Description (CatalĂ )
- +I have been using the functionality of the amendments and I have some questions that I would like to know your opinion:
- +
- +Does it make sense that the functionality of amendments is only general? Now, we can only configure the amendments in general. It can not be enabled or disabled depending on the participation phase. Should we be able to?
- +
- +If on the first question do you think it makes sense as it is now, how could we fix the following situation?
- +Imagine a 3-phase process. The first phase participants create the proposals. The second phase participants can make amendments. And the third phase participants vote. In the second phase, we have deactivated the creation of proposals. Even so, a participant makes an amendment that is not accepted. This amendment is promoted by proposal. Does it make sense that, even if the amendment is not accepted, can it be promoted as a proposal even if the creation phase of proposals is closed? Could it not lead to malicious uses?
- +
- +I understand that when we use participatory texts and we have a text that can be amended, there has not been a preliminary phase of proposals. In this case, it does make sense to promote the amendment on a proposal. But if we are faced with a participatory process that wants to make an amendment phase with citizen proposals, it may be pointless to promote an amendment if the creation of proposals is disabled.
- +
- +What do you think?
Description (English)
- +I have been using the functionality of the amendments and I have some questions that I would like to know your opinion:
- +
- +Does it make sense that the functionality of amendments is only general? Now, we can only configure the amendments in general. It can not be enabled or disabled depending on the participation phase. Should we be able to?
- +
- +If on the first question do you think it makes sense as it is now, how could we fix the following situation?
- +Imagine a 3-phase process. The first phase participants create the proposals. The second phase participants can make amendments. And the third phase participants vote. In the second phase, we have deactivated the creation of proposals. Even so, a participant makes an amendment that is not accepted. This amendment is promoted by proposal. Does it make sense that, even if the amendment is not accepted, can it be promoted as a proposal even if the creation phase of proposals is closed? Could it not lead to malicious uses?
- +
- +I understand that when we use participatory texts and we have a text that can be amended, there has not been a preliminary phase of proposals. In this case, it does make sense to promote the amendment on a proposal. But if we are faced with a participatory process that wants to make an amendment phase with citizen proposals, it may be pointless to promote an amendment if the creation of proposals is disabled.
- +
- +What do you think?
Description (Castellano)
- +I have been using the functionality of the amendments and I have some questions that I would like to know your opinion:
- +
- +Does it make sense that the functionality of amendments is only general? Now, we can only configure the amendments in general. It can not be enabled or disabled depending on the participation phase. Should we be able to?
- +
- +If on the first question do you think it makes sense as it is now, how could we fix the following situation?
- +Imagine a 3-phase process. The first phase participants create the proposals. The second phase participants can make amendments. And the third phase participants vote. In the second phase, we have deactivated the creation of proposals. Even so, a participant makes an amendment that is not accepted. This amendment is promoted by proposal. Does it make sense that, even if the amendment is not accepted, can it be promoted as a proposal even if the creation phase of proposals is closed? Could it not lead to malicious uses?
- +
- +I understand that when we use participatory texts and we have a text that can be amended, there has not been a preliminary phase of proposals. In this case, it does make sense to promote the amendment on a proposal. But if we are faced with a participatory process that wants to make an amendment phase with citizen proposals, it may be pointless to promote an amendment if the creation of proposals is disabled.
- +
- +What do you think?