Post

I've remained rather quiet so far with this ongoing discussion because frankly I can't see how limiting voting to WA members, influence or whatever can be done in a fair way for various reasons that have been pointed out.

Honestly, if we want to engage more with embassy voting and have a list of embassies that better reflects how Forest genuinely feels it makes more sense to me to approach this from the opposite direction. Have something written into the constitution whereby if 6% (or whatever) of Forest residents agree that an existing embassy needs reevaluation it triggers a vote on whether or not to close an existing embassy down.

Sorry, still v. occupied at present. Will try to get better thoughts down on paper later.