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.

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.

I get PMoon's concern, but what if someone has gone on vacation when an issue comes up and doesn't get back until the voting period has started and has something unique to say? If the discussion is all taking place in one thread and you're tired of reading about it, then don't read the thread!

I'm bothered by the calls for 2/3 majorities. A simple majority should suffice.

I'm bothered by the calls for 2/3 majorities. A simple majority should suffice.

I think that depends on the item under discussion. Starting another thread, I think a majority would be sufficient. Changing site etiquette or disciplinary procedures, maybe we'd want something higher than that.

I'm bothered by the calls for 2/3 majorities. A simple majority should suffice.

I'm curious as to what bothers you about a 2/3 majority. My gut feeling is that 2/3 majority = of the good, but maybe there's some problem with it I'm not seeing.