No to Roberts Rules of Order. Mind you, I want formal procedures - just not that friggin many formal procedures. Having a voting procedure, including a quorum/nine concurrences rule, a debate period and close of debate is formal enough. We don't need to start having points of order and such. (And I long ago determined that I would never be a "chair" in any organization, If I have to be a piece of furniture, I'm the comfy sofa. )

gar-- I don't think anyone meant this. this was meant to address the issue of HOW we decide what to voteupon.

So that if I propose the ubiquitous "connor is HOTT" thread, and no one else is interested, we neither discuss nor vote. I think that at least a few buffistas should be interested or we will be voting or discussing all over the place.

And, while I see Schmokers point, I think the extra thread with one post per person per debates is on balance in error. My problem is that the extra thread will tip people who are already reluctant away from participating.

Sophia - OK -well then we are in agreement. I'm for requiring at least ten supporters (accuired informally in natter or bureucracy or via e-mail forwarded to stompy) before something goes into into formal discussion. And I willing to consider other numbers. I think less than ten or more than fifty would be a mistake though.

This is all very much, but basically everything sounds fine.

A topic is selected. There is discussion for X days. There is voting for Y days. A decision is made. The decisions stands for 6 months.

The only thing I would suggest is:

a.) Announcing votes in Sunnydale. As in real life, I might not attend City Council meetings or watch C-SPAN as much as I ought, but I always vote. (Community College Trustee elections excepted, because I don't care *that* much.) Just let me know there's something up for vote and I'll so be there.

b.) The only thing I would ask is a well-formulated question or proposal. I think this might rest on the original proposal maker. It would help me, the voter, to know very specifically about what I'm voting on and what limitations there are. This should be codified in the proposal I mean, because once the voting process starts it seems that the discussion isn't available anymore and isn't prepared to make changes and clarify stuff or answer my question about stuff.

I'm for requiring at least ten supporters (accuired informally in natter or bureucracy or via e-mail forwarded to stompy) before something goes into into formal discussion.

I disagree. I don't think we need to bring something into the formal debate thread if it's clear only one person cares about the issue, but requiring ten people to agree before an issue is even officially raised seems to defeat the function of the discussion period.

Just FTR, I was kind of serious before -- I mean, so far in this discussion I've agreed and disagreed with any number of things. I don't have A Position on some parts of the issue, and I do on others.

To this point, I'm only seeing Schmoker and Wolfram's support for an extra condensed discussion thread. As someone pointed out, long discussions are the Buffista way, and there's just as much reason to have extra condensations for every thread. Can we drop it unless more people support it?

b.) The only thing I would ask is a well-formulated question or proposal. I think this might rest on the original proposal maker. It would help me, the voter, to know very specifically about what I'm voting on and what limitations there are. This should be codified in the proposal I mean, because once the voting process starts it seems that the discussion isn't available anymore and isn't prepared to make changes and clarify stuff or answer my question about stuff.

My question is this:

Someone proposes something well-formulated. In the course of the discussion changes are made. a) who reformulates the proposal b) by reformulated and trying to decide WHAT exactly to vote on, are we going to let ourselves in for more and more discussion and come to no agreement.

I see both sides of this. If we make changes to the original proposal, it seems likes someone is likely to feel disenfranchised. If we make ourselves vote on the original proposal, and then have another round after that is over,that is a waste of time.

Perhaps at the end of the discussion period, someone (A volunteer? The original proposer?) rewrites the proposal to reflect changes made during the discussion? I agree it would help if people knew EXACTLY what they were voting on.

Cindy, if you were in my class today, I'd give you a chocolate for you what you said about consensus. I'd also like to add, consensus has a totally different meaning than what the buffistas have been doing (consensus means general agreement on opinion and what we have been doing is either majority, or loudest person, or person who says what they want the most).

So....

Yes to voting.

Yes to a discussion only thread that closes before voting (and opens only when there is an issue). It much the same way that campaigners can't campaign at a voting poll, some of us (me) might need some distance to make a decision. If the convo continues endlessly it's no good.

1 week discussion then 1 week voting seems like a really long time to me. But it's also a neat way to enclose time. If we did 3 business days + 3 business days, it wouldn't work because whose business days? Mine or Nilly's?

I'm for a list of tabled conversations with a predetermined time limit on the not discussing it anymore. I think that list might be a handy plain HTML document and needn't be a thread.

I can't explain why, but I'm not a fan of simple majority. Think about how often we are closely tied in votes (denzel vs. monkey, anyone?) If the community is that closely split, there won't be a satisfactory outcome for a near majority of people. That said, I haven't any other ideas. The social studies teacher who lives next door to my inner english teacher says, "electoral college!" But my inner social studies teacher has had her ass kicked for that idea by my more logical inner english teacher.

I am utterly against the idea of a having only one post to express my opinions. Whether or not it is intended, it will squash discussion. We do a lot of blah blah blah. No surprise to anyone who spends time here.