What if there's more than one issue on the table. I.e. voting on a Connor is HOTT thread and voting on a Gunn is HOTT thread, and then somebody mentions that Allyson's asspicking thread is still undecided. Are we limiting discussion and voting to one issue a week/52 issues a year?

What if only one person cares?

Well, if the other 799 people on the board don't care enough about the proposal to vote "no" then the one person should get what they want.

Is there any broad agreement about putting a time limit on this discussion so we can say, "That's enough let's vote"? Three more days of this talk? End of the week? Next Monday? Sooner?

I think we need to do two things to answer this. The first is defining exactly what we seem to be building towards, and putting it into a yes/no form. The second is deciding whether the time at WX counts or not. If it does, Wednesday makes four days, since the proposals on this stuff gelled late Sat. or early Sun.; if not, Thursday does.

I don't see a problem with starting up a new discussion, if warranted, immediately after the (4 days?) elapse on a current discussion.

Well, if the other 799 people on the board don't care enough about the proposal to vote "no" then the one person should get what they want.

Well, yes. BUT, won't that lead to discssion and voting threads for everything someone brings up in bureacracy?

P.S. Australians have to vote?!

In Federal and State elections, yes. There are exemptions for religious reasons, for instance, and it's not compulsory for people resident outside the country at the time. If you don't vote without cause then you pay a fine (about $50, last I checked, but that was a while ago).

Of course, if you really don't like any of the candidates, you can turn up and enter an invalid ballot (my favourite was a guy who drew a big Anarchy symbol on his paper).

Also, I can volunteer to tally votes as well, so that we can spread it around.

Also, at the end of this discussion are we going to vote on one long proposal or on each part of it?

What's the tie-breaker solution?

That's where the Whip comes in. We just pick some people who are on the fence and I beat them into submission.

Democracy is fun!

On a less S&M slant, I think the 4 + 3 is more than adequate. I also think that to start the process, you need more than one person saying they want something. You need at least one person to suggest it and maybe two others going, "Hey, that's a nifty idea." Otherwise, we'll all be stuck in debate hell for the rest of our lives.

Also, I can volunteer to tally votes as well, so that we can spread it around.

I can do this too.

Dammit, I had this whole long post listing everything we needed to vote on from this discussion, and the computer ate it.

I think the list was:

• Opening a debate/Supreme Court thread dedicated to the discussion of one policy issue at a time.
• Voting via email on all policy/maintenance decisions. (This seems to be pretty much a given, but it is a change, so I left it on the list.)
• Keeping decisions open for four days of discussion then three days of voting, OR three and three, OR one week for each.
• Requiring a certain number of posters (2, 3, OR 10) support an idea before officially opening a discussion
• Requiring a certain number of votes (20 OR 10% of registered users)to make a decision official
• Requiring 60% of voters agree to make a decision final, OR requiring a simple majority, OR requiring a majority for thread creation but 66% for major policy changes.
• Closing decisions for six months OR one year once they're made.

What's the most streamlined way to vote on all of this?