Well, a gathering is brie, mellow song stylings; shindig, dip, less mellow song stylings, perhaps a large amount of malt beverage, and hootenanny, well, it's chock full of hoot, just a little bit of nanny.

Oz ,'Beneath You'


Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier  

A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.

Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych


Sophia Brooks - Feb 24, 2003 10:59:03 am PST #5139 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

I think I am being dumb.

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


Nutty - Feb 24, 2003 10:59:09 am PST #5140 of 10001
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."

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.


brenda m - Feb 24, 2003 11:03:03 am PST #5141 of 10001
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

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.)


Nutty - Feb 24, 2003 11:03:47 am PST #5142 of 10001
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."

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.


Anathema - Feb 24, 2003 11:09:09 am PST #5143 of 10001
Jonathan Will Always Be My Hero

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.


Wolfram - Feb 24, 2003 11:27:16 am PST #5144 of 10001
Visilurking

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.


amych - Feb 24, 2003 11:40:17 am PST #5145 of 10001
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

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


Cindy - Feb 24, 2003 11:41:49 am PST #5146 of 10001
Nobody

I think Wolfram has a point. Perhaps the discussion period could be pared down a bit, with some sort of extension if the issue comes up over a weekend. I have no hard number of days to suggest but 3 sounds decent.

I misused quorum. I'm against a quorum. I just wanted to know if we were going to use a simple majority or if we'd want a higher percentage. Seems to me though, that for just the initial issue, namely: Are We Going to Vote on (most) Bureaucracy Issues the issue is straight-forward enough that we could start with a poll there and then move on.


Jesse - Feb 24, 2003 11:41:57 am PST #5147 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

And I may blab on for fifty posts in a five-hour period, but that five-hour period may be someone else's dark time, and they may want to have input.

That said, I wonder if three days of discussion followed by three days of voting might not be enough?


Jon B. - Feb 24, 2003 11:45:44 am PST #5148 of 10001
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!

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 don't want to lose my franchise because I'm on a business trip for a few days.