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.

Somewhere on WX, from pre-move, I think it's spelled out.

It should, along with stompy contacts, be added to the FAQ. Don't think it should be changed, mind you, but it should be added.

I agree with David, and also Plei re stompies, although I think that should be put aside until we deal with how we make decisions. And then we can make a decision about that. ;)

I agree with Jesse.

(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;

Here's my problem with this. Say we established a floor of 10 percent of registered users. Right now, that means about 75-80 votes are needed.

Joss comes by, and suddenly we need 100 votes. We get news about major ME developments, and it's up to 120. Etc.

My understanding is that there's no simple way of determining what you might call "active" users - say, unique posters within the last month? That might be a better number to base things on, but more complicated than it's worth, I suspect.