Information about the cookies used on the website
We use cookies on our website to improve the performance and content of the site. The cookies enable us to provide a more individual user experience and social media channels.

Propose new functionalities for Decidim software

#DecidimRoadmap Designing Decidim together

Phase 1 of 1
Open 2019-01-01 - 2030-12-31
Process phases Submit a proposal

Changes at "Behavior of the amendments"

Compare view mode:
HTML view mode:

Title (Català)

  • +Behavior of the amendments
  • +Behavior of the amendments
Deletions
Additions
  • +Behavior of the amendments
Deletions
Additions
  • +Behavior of the amendments

Title (Castellano)

  • +Behavior of the amendments
  • +Behavior of the amendments
Deletions
Additions
  • +Behavior of the amendments
Deletions
Additions
  • +Behavior of the amendments

Title (English)

  • +Behavior of the amendments
  • +Behavior of the amendments
Deletions
Additions
  • +Behavior of the amendments
Deletions
Additions
  • +Behavior of the amendments

Description (Català)

  • +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?
  • +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?
Deletions
Additions
  • +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?
Deletions
Additions
  • +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?
  • +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?
Deletions
Additions
  • +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?
Deletions
Additions
  • +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?
  • +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?
Deletions
Additions
  • +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?
Deletions
Additions
  • +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?
Version number 1 out of 1 Show all versions Go back to debate
Version author
Avatar: Pau Parals Pau Parals
Version created at 19/02/2019 14:51

You need to enable all cookies in order to see this content.

Change cookie settings