Roberts Rules are how formal commitee meetings are run.

Some on proposes, it is seconded and thirded, then the motion is put up for vote.

Some on proposes, it is seconded and thirded, then the motion is put up for vote.

Ah, gotcha.

[link]

And maybe a good idea to place a post in other threads, too, linking people to each Bureau post to be voted on. That way you get the attention of people who don't come in Bureau.

One of the reasons we created the Sunnydale Press thread was to have a one-stop place for announcements like this, so I'm strongly against cross-posting in other threads.

RE the voting mechanism: either a Yay/Nay subject line, or separate Yay/Nay email addresses would work well. However, for those whom the mailto link wouldn't work, it's probably better to go with separate email addresses since they are less likely to be misspelled.

Should we, as Sophia suggested, post in Press then, to the effect "It's Monday and we're talking about how Buffistas is run"?

One of the reasons we created the Sunnydale Press thread was to have a one-stop place for announcements like this, so I'm strongly against cross-posting in other threads.

True. I don't always read Bureaucracy, and I might skip'n'skim through various threads, but I always read everything that's posted in Press and Beep Me. Not to sound snippy, but if people don't check these, then they've got no one else to blame if they miss something important.

Not to sound snippy, but if people don't check these, then they've got no one else to blame if they miss something important.

I totally agree Anne. I'll put a post in Press right now about this discussion.

Cindy, the reason I proposed some long-ish time for voting is so that everyone who wants to, can vote. And some proposals will be niche-y enough, I imagine, that not that many people will care enough to vote. I'm thinking about some quorum threshhold, but I don't know what it would be -- 50 votes?

I think we need a long-ish time, too. In fact, my instinct said a week. I just wonder if during the voting, we want the discussion to continue, or to let the votes speak for themselves.

I might have used the wrong word when I said quorum. But I don't want an arbitrary number assigned as a threshhold. I want a percentage of votes received as a threshhold, because really, if people can't bother to vote, I don't want their unconcern or laziness adding to or taking away from something that matters to the people who can be bothered to vote. So I'd say we either go with a straight majority of voters, or a pre-established (60 or 66% seem right to me) percentage of voters.

So I'd say we either go with a straight majority of voters, or a pre-established (60 or 66% seem right to me) percentage of voters.

What Cindy said, and for the reasons that Cindy said.

I think that a 2/3 majority of voters is a far better indication of consensus than a straight majority.

Edited for spelling.

I just wonder if during the voting, we want the discussion to continue, or to let the votes speak for themselves.

I think a week of discussion followed by a week of voting is the cleanest way to do things. Our biggest problem is not knowing when to shut up, so a formal opening and closing of a discussion is, IMO, necessary.