(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.

I've gotta say, I think 50 votes is enough. It's not a large percentage of registered user, but it's a decent percentage of regular posters, and accounts for the fact that a lot of people won't feel strongly enough one way or the other to bother voting.

The trouble, Plei, is not so much that you don't know, but that I (for example) don't know.

I don't know either, really. I have a vague understanding, but I'd like to see them enumerated. But I agree it can wait until we've established how we make decisions.

I think I am being dumb.

What is a quorum and how does it replace the majority stuff?

We could set an absolute minimum, i.e. no swinging majority if only 15 people voted, and then take it from there. I'd be more comfortable the larger the voting body, and the clearer the majority, but we can't tie ourselves in knots and/or require people to vote.

Concur on those who want to set aside the Stompy Formal Job Description till afterward. Just keep it in the backs of our brains, for next week.

Mwah to Jesse, who appreciates the use fo a good $0.50 word.

Sophia, a quorum is just a minimum number of votes that must be cast for the vote to be valid. (Doesn't matter which way they vote, just the total.)

Sophia, quorum is the minimum percentage attending so that a vote can even be taken. Like, if 80 of the 100 Senators are absent, it's not okay to take a vote and consider the 80 absentees abstainers.

Chiefly, I remember that Bryn Mawr plenary, the annual student governing body meeting, cannot go forward in discussion unless quorum is present -- I think 75% of the student body, or something.

Speaking of quorum in a digital environment strikes me as a misnomer, because we're never actually all in one room to be counted as present. The length of time for discussion and voting, adn the ease-of-use in voting procedure, are all I think we need to ensure access, if not actual attendance, by enough or all of the Buffistas, as they themselves individually decide.

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

Even including time on WX, it has only been a few days of discussion. And I think the consensus so far has been a week of discussion followed by a week of voting. So I think that starting off the voting after three days (with only one day on Phoenix) of discussion would be a bad precedent.

I also think that trying to set a minimum vote number might give us all an aneurysm. It's a fluid community. Who knows how many people really care about voting and such? Could be 50. Could be 500.

As long as we make sure and take all reasonable steps to let everyone know that an issue is being discussed and that a vote will take place, then however many end up sending in a vote is however many that care to do so. And if people can't be bothered, then holding up resolution of an issue because not enough votes came in to reach a minimum is probably a disservice to the active members of the community.

I want to respectfully point out that since LJ's post last night at around 8 pm EST, there have been well over 150 posts on this issue, and I daresay they have not been from anywhere near 150 individual posters, probably closer to 15 or 20. And these are not one liner posts either. And this does not include any previous discussion at WX. Has anyone really thought out the practical aspects to one week of discussions and then another week of voting? I would recommend that at the very least the voting be initiated after a day or two of discussions and run concurrently to help minimize the sheer quantity of posts on the issues. IJS.

I very much disagree, Wolfram. Post count just isn't a compelling reason to deny people the chance to discuss important issues.