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.

Maybe because I've been in the thick of these discussions since before we moved over to Phoenix, I'm ready to vote on voting now.

Though I see the process that's gathering momentum here as one piece, it really is a collection of individual elements that will probably need individual votes.

We need then to order the votes in a logical way, with the essential components voted on first because they will determine the other decisions. I think that means first deciding: (a) that we are definitely going to start voting on decisions instead of merely trying to achieve loose consensus (I see strong support for this); (b) the method of voting and tallying (two email accounts now, on-site poll later); (c) majority or supermajority vote (I think majority will suffice except for what we might consider "constitutional issues" that would fundamentally change the nature of the community. Such as closing registration, or registration by invite only. Something very big); (d) what constitutes a quorum and what that number should be (I think it should a percentage of registered users since any hard number may not be relevant if community size fluctuates over time; (e) creating a Supreme Court thread (I see strong support for this, despite Sue's objections. The simple idea is to put a limit on debate and stop the circular arguments which are causing some friction and frustration. If everybody knows the rules).

Maybe we need to set a time limit on this discussion and then at a certain time close it and take action. I don't know if we need a whole extra week, since we've been talking about it so much already. I could live with that but at this point I'd rather get moving on the most basic issues. I'd say no more than three more days discussion on this, then vote on voting.

PM-- maybe it is that we (as buffistas) don't know. I've seen plenty of posts where people say "let's just leave it up to the stompies... we trust them" and then a stompy saying "no, you need to decide, and then we will do it." I mean, I think I am pretty clear, but maybe not everyone is?

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.

I totally agree with this when it comes to things like changing procedures or adding new threads.

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

I'm not one, but I agree with Plei on this. Codifying those duties sounds to me like people want to add/change them. Fair enough, but let's hold off on this issue, because it's sounding like there will be a lot of discussion needed.