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.

3. Discussion of pros and cons, for a certain period of time (say, one week). Posts about adding GUNN IS HOTT or CONNOR SUX threads are considered off-topic.

4. Voting through votes@buffistas.org, for 48 hours (or two business days, if discussion ends on a weekend.)

It's my feeling that 3 should not automatically lead to 4, though - there will be times, I imagine, when the discussion weigh heavily on one side or the other. [I'd also prefer the voting period to be cut down a bit - maybe 3 days with exceptions if we hit a long weekend or something - but I don't think I'm in the majority on this ;-)]

I do like the idea of a separate discussion thread, to be opened and closed as needed. But I think it should be restricted to the more earth-shaking (or contentious) issues.

Someone mentioned upthread that it might be used for discussing/taking action against trolls. I'm not sure how that would work, and I suspect it could get ugly. More discussion (sigh) may be needed on this issue.

Simple majority/plurality seems sufficient in most cases - but would it complicate things too much to have that determined in the discussion prior to opening up a vote? That might backfire - I can see people on the pro side feeling that things are being set up to fail. But since we can't know what specific issues are going to arise, categorizing them now could be tough.

I don't know about the others, but I think I know what my stompy duties are pretty clearly.

I haven't seen any indication that any of the other stompies are confused, either.

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.

Especially if we do set up a lengthy discussion and voting process, as now being hashed out. I'd say 20 votes for; 10 votes against implies 750-some abstentions. On their (our) own heads be it if they don't like the result.

The trouble, Plei, is not so much that you don't know, but that I (for example) don't know. That may be a newbie thing; it may be a "go read the FAQ, you stupid person" thing; I don't know.

(And I'm too tired right now. t /natter )

It's my feeling that 3 should not automatically lead to 4, though - there will be times, I imagine, when the discussion weigh heavily on one side or the other.

I disagree. I think the point of having the voting step is to deal with the problems inherent in having things determined by discussion - whether or not the loudest voices are actually the majority - and I'd rather not get into having to make qualitative judgment about how much of a volume majority is enough. (Minus a situation where, say, one person makes a suggestion and no one else supports it.) If we discover that we're voting all the time and it's a hassle, my opinion could change, but until that happens I think sticking to a procedure is the better, more hassle-free way to go.