Delurking to say that I think the separate thread will make it easier for someone to get all the debate about an issue with a high signal-to-noise ratio. If we end up with three issues being discussed simulatneously, it might make everything a little more coherent if they're separated by thread/time/bubble pack and allow people to focus on whatever's at hand (or maybe that's my lack-of-coffee non-multitasking morning brain speaking). It also allows people to be more involved with the issues they have an active interest in and follow that discussion (e.g. I have no opinion on how we should archive old threads 'cause I'm not technically qualified, but I have opinions about Whuffie)

t relurk

The Great Debate: I Came Here for an Argument!

No you didn't.

Yes to separate thread for topic discussion.
One week/One week seems reasonable.
Email vote, poll page here, form here, whatever is used works for me.
My instinct is that more than simple majority may be needed on some issues, but I don’t have strong feelings about it.

Having a structure will be nice. Hopefully there won’t be things to vote on all the time because time to read show threads is good too.

I'm in favour of a structure that will tell me what's happening. As a relative newbie, I have to agree that three conversations at once in one thread- especially when they're all important- is confusing.

Concur on using Robert's Rules of Order for proposing a debate, and on having a separate This Week On Debates Are We thread.

I for one am glad we're going into this now, and into such detail, and coming up with (potential) results. The more we formalize our rules and procedures, the more streamlined and orderly our future debates will be. I can handle disorder when it's along the lines of 10 Buffistas in a living room, but 150+ in a fast-moving board, I needs me some order.

• 50% majority on new thread creation?
  
• Plurality on thread naming?
  
• override majority (66%) on momentous issues?

We're also going to need to codify how much executive power to cede to the Stompy Foots, because heretofore they seem to have understood themselves as "expressing/enacting the will of the people". If the will of the people is codified into a vote, some of this ambiguity is removed, but at the price of speed. So, concomitant to, or following on, making voting decisions, I suggest we describe exactly which tasks a Stompy may do without mandate (i.e. individual judgement), and which require mandate (vote). That sort of comes after the voting is decided upon, but is the next logical question to settle, yesno?

I never, ever come into Bureaucracy because I Trust in the Buffistas to Do What's Right (and my trust has never yet been shaken) but hey, if I can vote in Chicago, where the machine runs everything, I'll certainly vote in Buffistaland.

So, yes, I like the procedure set out above (discussion, vote, tally, separate thread for debate). I think decisions could be announced in Press; I think having a page that says what got voted down will save people from having to post "Yeah, we voted against CONNOR IS HOTT in January, please don't bring it up AGAIN until June, Thanks!"

Also, I love this place. I was trying to describe it to a non-nettish person on Friday, telling how everyone made sure that people knew that we had gone off to W/X (hey! we're a smart mob!) and how ... NICE that was. How communityish. And I think this kind of considered, rational, cooperative discussion is the best way to ensure that apathetic, live-and-let-live, Natter-COMM-Spoilers folks like me both participate in this kind of decision-making AND continue to be able to say "It's just so ... NICE! And everyone's so ... FUNNY! I meet them in person and I LIKE them! I dunno, it's just a great place to hang out."

Plurality on thread naming?

I agree with others who've said that we don't need the formal process for thread naming. Hell, the Natter naming would be never ending (week 1: Discuss name for Natter 15; week 2: Vote on name for Natter 15; week 3: Discuss name for Natter 16; week 4: Vote on name for Natter 16; week 5: Discuss name for Natter 17; etc.)

We're also going to need to codify how much executive power to cede to the Stompy Foots, because heretofore they seem to have understood themselves as "expressing/enacting the will of the people". If the will of the people is codified into a vote, some of this ambiguity is removed, but at the price of speed. So, concomitant to, or following on, making voting decisions, I suggest we describe exactly which tasks a Stompy may do without mandate (i.e. individual judgement), and which require mandate (vote). That sort of comes after the voting is decided upon, but is the next logical question to settle, yesno?

I love this paragraph. And not only because of its use of "concomitant."

I suggest we describe exactly which tasks a Stompy may do without mandate (i.e. individual judgement), and which require mandate (vote). That sort of comes after the voting is decided upon, but is the next logical question to settle, yesno?

Basically a full and detailed Stompy Job Description? Yeah, that should be on the list.

Basically a full and detailed Stompy Job Description? Yeah, that should be on the list.

I'd like us to think about refraining from deeper issues like the one above, until we agree on a voting procedure. There's a real risk of the process and the discussion devolving if we don't.

As to the voting itself, I'm with ita on not feeling like we should have a minimum required number of voters. Here's why - I don't think that someone not bothering to vote, should count as a vote against something. If you care enough to stop (or start) something, you need to vote on it.