Sensible thoughts, both.
Just a comment from the inside of the washing machine...
To clip this part off:
"I suspect you were thinking of people who had moved here as adults and momentarily forgot about other cases.
It would be possible to have a whole heap of conditional rules to make that work, but I actually think motion 1 strikes a sensible balance - we can't even seem to keep track of decisions at AGMs reliably - can we really keep track of complicated and inevitably evolving eligibility criteria?
I would have some sympathy for say 2 years residency for initial registration and eligibility, and 5-10 years to make it permanent, with no middle ground, but think one criteria is even simpler and halves the amount of checking. "
The claim that Motion 1 is firming up existing rules has been widely made, but is untrue.
So if there was no Motion 1, and this caused the admin burden to be heavy, it would have to be heavy already.
Isn't the checking burden being used as a Trojan horse?
Motion 1 is 2015 SGM proposal (which wanted SCO code => eligibility) on steroids (now wants, and insists on getting, lifelong eligibility from temporary residence, as well), which was defeated, by pulling the whole eligibility item and giving it to a committee.
There was another eligibility motion on the table at the time, which was closer to firming up existing procedures, had that been the aim.
Despite appearances, there was obviously no REAL rush - then, and now.
It wouldn't have been hard to devise (imperfect, no doubt) scales to take into account things like you are discussing. How long people stayed here, and how long that should give them. Sliding scales and a few parameters.
Supposed time constraints and the induced 'rush job' thinking reduce head space and prevent reasoned thought and planning.
Now we are throwing out anything that might cause a bit of checking - without even thinking about it.
Just a thought as we dive out of the way of the horse's wheels!
Just a comment from the inside of the washing machine...
To clip this part off:
"I suspect you were thinking of people who had moved here as adults and momentarily forgot about other cases.
It would be possible to have a whole heap of conditional rules to make that work, but I actually think motion 1 strikes a sensible balance - we can't even seem to keep track of decisions at AGMs reliably - can we really keep track of complicated and inevitably evolving eligibility criteria?
I would have some sympathy for say 2 years residency for initial registration and eligibility, and 5-10 years to make it permanent, with no middle ground, but think one criteria is even simpler and halves the amount of checking. "
The claim that Motion 1 is firming up existing rules has been widely made, but is untrue.
So if there was no Motion 1, and this caused the admin burden to be heavy, it would have to be heavy already.
Isn't the checking burden being used as a Trojan horse?
Motion 1 is 2015 SGM proposal (which wanted SCO code => eligibility) on steroids (now wants, and insists on getting, lifelong eligibility from temporary residence, as well), which was defeated, by pulling the whole eligibility item and giving it to a committee.
There was another eligibility motion on the table at the time, which was closer to firming up existing procedures, had that been the aim.
Despite appearances, there was obviously no REAL rush - then, and now.
It wouldn't have been hard to devise (imperfect, no doubt) scales to take into account things like you are discussing. How long people stayed here, and how long that should give them. Sliding scales and a few parameters.
Supposed time constraints and the induced 'rush job' thinking reduce head space and prevent reasoned thought and planning.
Now we are throwing out anything that might cause a bit of checking - without even thinking about it.
Just a thought as we dive out of the way of the horse's wheels!