(No support for my easy-count-ability two-email addresses proposal?)

I think it's a good idea, but I think that the "how" of the voting can wait until we figure out more of the procedure.

Most of our recent polls have drawn just shy of 100 votes. However, we have almost 800 registered users, so only a minority of Buffistas vote.

What I don't have a sense of is how many active users we have. ita, do you know? And how would you define "active user"? (I'd say anyone who posts at least 2x/week on average, but that ignores lurkers)

Anyhow, I agree we should have more than a majority required to win on major decisions. 60% would work for me.

(No support for my easy-count-ability two-email addresses proposal?)

I thought it was so good I didn't bother commenting ;-).

A week of discussion plus a week of voting time means two weeks from proposal to implementation. That seems REALLY long to me, but I do tend to be kind of impatient girl.

This may depend on what the issue is. For example, a completely new thread has to involve everyone who might use it or not want it to exist; naming the new Bitches thread only really involves Bitches.

Good point. I think that issues such as (heaven forfend!) booting a trollish poster or creating an entirely new breed of thread would require significant input from the entire community. Thread naming doesn't seem to be a comparable issue to me.

I don't have a problem with the thread naming procedure we're using now. Is there a perception that it's "broken"?

And this leads us to another question:

WHAT would we be voting on? And would one poster only wanting something necessitate voting (example: Connor is HOTT Thread) Thread naming seems like it goes along OK as it is.

The voting is not something I see us using a lot after our first go over of our issues list.

Is there a perception that it's "broken"?

Not that I've seen. I raise it only as an example-- because we do seem to be discussing how to make all descions (which is a good idea), but I wanted to make the point that there are different kinds: some are protection ('is this poster a troll?'), some are growth ('shall we start the CONNOR IS HOTT thread?'), and other are maintiance ('we need a new natter, what's it called?'). They all need procedures, but not on the same scale.

Edit: in some cases, what we have may well be fine. It's more a 'hey look at the whole picture' thing.

WHAT would we be voting on? And would one poster only wanting something necessitate voting (example: Connor is HOTT Thread) Thread naming seems like it goes along OK as it is.

I would suggest the following:

• Creation of entirely new threads
  
• Deletion or consolidation of little-used threads
  
• Changes to board policy
  
• Suspension of trolls (as an absolute last resort, if at all)
  
• Changes to the structure of the board itself that would require major financial commitment or time commitment on the part of our techies

Did I miss anything obvious?

What Anne Said, although I'd note that really obvious trolls could be identified by acclamation, without the waiting period.

Leftover steak:

I would suggest that a "Robert's Rules of Order" procedure be used to bring something up for discussion/voting. Let's say that someone suggests a Connor is HOTT! thread. If (arbitrary number) Buffistas say that they'd be interested, the topic moves on to discussion. Then, if after discussion, (arbitrary number) Buffistas are still interested in bringing it to a vote, it is brought up for a vote.