Every time we've decided things by poll, it's been by simple majority. And I don't remember us ever having a result anywhere close to 2/3. And I don't remember any calls for supermajority until now.

Isn't that because we were voting from a choice of more that two, like thread names? I think, in that situation, a clear plurality is fine.

If 20 posters hash out a discussion and vote, why shouldn't it count? If I can't be arsed to come over and be #21 to say "this is a really dumb idea, I vote no", then I don't see why their decision is invalid.

If you take vacation or time off the board, you miss stuff. I'm in favour of a week of discussion, a week of voting, no overlap. Just so things end.

The problem with doing all this in bureaucracy is that 17 things might be going on here. Anti-proliferation as I am, I do support one new thread, for discussion and having results posted there and in Press once the vote is complete.

All this pseudo-political, bureaucratic discussion is really difficult to follow since everyone has their own opinions and suggestions.

I agree with Sue that if we aren't careful, we're going to suck the fun right out of this place. I guess since our raison d'etre is up in the air, we have to have something to talk about, however, since I work in a Bureaucracy, I don't want to play in one too.

I'll go with whatever people decide, unless you decide to ban all Canadians, which I come down solidly against.

Have fun.

Should lurkers get votes?

Should lurkers get votes?

I don't see why not -- anyone registered should be eligible.

Should lurkers get votes?

Hell yes.

having results posted there and in Press once the vote is complete.

I'd like to also see a web page listing closed decisions, because people might not think to go back several months in Press to see if their proposal has been discussed already.

I think we have two threads right now (bureaucracy and Press) which serve similart purposes, that would suit the decision making process we are contemplating.

I really like the idea of having a discussion thread separate from Bureaucracy so that other bureaucratic issues don't get lost in the of the Big Debate Du Semaine (or should that be "de la"?).

For additional clarity, we could change the thread slug to reflect whatever it is we're discussing at the moment.

I really like the idea of having a discussion thread separate from Bureaucracy so that other bureaucratic issues don't get lost in the of the Big Debate Du Semaine (or should that be "de la"?).

De la. And I think I agree with this, but I also worry that things are getting a bit over-bureaucratized, but I'm not entirely sure that something less formal would neccesarily be a better idea.

I think our lack of formality is being our undoing, personally. For Big Decisions, a little formality isn't so bad. There won't be that many of them, and we are still Buffistas -- I mean, I don't think anyone's going to get yelled at for being slightly casual within our newly-formal framework.