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.

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.

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?

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.

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

I think it would be enough, but we might want to consider holding off starting the three days if we're, say, going into Thanksgiving weekend or something, and a large number of people are going to be going dark or dim.

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

That might well be enough, with the understanding that weekends and holidays don't count. If we go with one week discussion/one week voting/no concurrent discussions, we could only decide two things a month, which seems like it might easily lead to a backlog.

Another possibility would be letting voting overlap with discussion of the next issue, but that runs the risk of confusiong people ("Wait -- they're TALKING about "Connor is Hott," but I'm voting on "Gunn is Hot"? WTF?")

You know, perhaps once an issue has been identified, each of us should refrain from posting more than once on the issue. Unless we want to reverse our position, that is.

That way we avoid a lot of thread backup, and we don't just engage in a lot of meaningless agreement between people who already have made up their minds. Which might also be a good reason why a seperate thread would be a good idea for discussion of issues. You could then back and forth an issue to your heart's extreme in Bureau, but you would only be able to make one sustained plea for your position in the official discussion thread.

Sometimes I worry that when 10-15 posters post 150 times between them that it appears there is more support for or against a position than there really is.

Not even sure this suggestion is managable. But just thought I would throw it out there.

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

You could just as easily lose it if it went to vote because you get sent out of town just as a 7 day discussion period expires. I've had the flu during elections. I was on bed-rest during a pregnancy too late to get an absentee vote during elections. I buried my father the day our school committee voted on closing my son's school. If we try to cover every contingency we'll first of all fail, but also risk going nuts. If a vote is close and someone comes back and says, I wasn't here, I'd rather let the person submit a late vote.

Sometimes I worry that when 10-15 posters post 150 times between them that it appears there is more support for or against a position than there really is.

That's why we're going to vote. The discussion volume won't count in the decision-making.