What's the danger with overlapping the voting with the discussion? That way people who need more discussion time can have it and not have to vote until the last day. I see that nobody seems to think this is a good idea and I'm curious as to why that is.

I think the intent of the discussion is at least to change some people's vote. And the proposal may change in the interim. Although I do like the efficiency; perhaps the last day of discussion could also open up voting. I dunno that the third day (say) would change that many votes.

To me it seems messy. a) Buffistas could talk forever with no limit and b) what if I voted and then someone changed my mind.

Ditto.

I like the idea of being able to add another day or two onto a three-day discussion period, but not voting any sooner than that.

Also? WHIP!!!

I think the intent of the discussion is at least to change some people's vote. And the proposal may change in the interim.

Yes, and yes.

What about a week for the issue, in total; 4 days' discussion followed by 3 days' voting. That way, unless there's a holiday weekend, there should always be both weekday and weekend access to both discussion and voting.

It's not that I'm wedded to a week for each, in spite of my earlier protests. But I'm against making either time period only a day or two, and even more against cutting off discussions early with an apparent early consensus -- I worry that it'll be too easy to say "do we all agree? okay? let's start voting" when there are only a few people around.

Also? WHIP!!!

Gawd, y'all are so porny. I'm shocked!

I worry that it'll be too easy to say "do we all agree? okay? let's start voting" when there are only a few people around.

That's exactly the problem we've been having already. "OK?" "OK!"

Consider the ending discussion early proposal tabula rasa'ed. I see why it's a bad idea now.

I like the four and three.

I like a discussion thread, at the end of each discussion is a post that discussion is closed; instructions to vote (by the person that proposed it, or the person who's tallying?), announcement of tallyer, end date (board time) of voting period, and that post repeated in press.

Then the voting starts (and no re-voting, which I see as a risk of the continued discussion).

Voting ends (post added to discussion thread).

Voting is tallied (post with results and duration of ban discussion on this topic goes into Press and discussion thread, and linked to by Nilly).

This I could live with.

I dislike quorums. Quora. Whatever. I think if only three people care, they should get their chance to change the world. If I don't want stuff to happen, then I'll cast a vote.

What's the tie-breaker solution?

What's the tie-breaker solution?

Thumb wrestling.

instructions to vote (by the person that proposed it, or the person who's tallying?),

Since I'll be much surprised if the actual questions are the same as the original suggestion, I don't think the original person will necessarily be the one. My gut feeling is that wording will need to be hashed out in-thread anyway towards the end of the discussion, although that could raise issues.

instructions to vote (by the person that proposed it, or the person who's tallying?)

By the proposer, I think. Jesse and Nilly have done us a big favor by volunteering to do the vote counts; I'd hate to see them have to write up each proposal as well. The proposal should be in a fairly standard form, but I really think it should be the responsibility of the person who thought the issue was important enough to call for a formal discussion and vote in the first place.

What's the tie-breaker solution?

Duelling.

Whether or not the position changes, someone needs to restate it before voting starts. I just want it to be clear whose responsibility it is, so that moment isn't left dangling. The proposer, the tallyer, brenda m, whoever.