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
I would agree that proposer words the final proposal for voting.
I still want a minimum number of proposer to get it to the ballot. I don't think ten is so high. And remember, no time limit on getting your ten. It just avoids endless voting.
What if there is more than one choice. For example, it looks like consensus is not popular. but suppose it was. Suppose we had substantial support for majority, super-majority, consensus - so you wanted all three on the ballot? This will happen on an issue eventually. Why not allow choice voting (0nly if a question cannot be subject to yes/no?) If you'll give me rights to a table in the database and a directory on the server, I'll volunteer to create the ballot when any choice voting is needed, and write to queries to tabulate as well. To tabulate we can use the Austrialian system, Borda Count, or (my favorite) instant Cordecet Round Robin. In any case the voting is the same. You rank choices. (And no change is always a choice.)
I still want a minimum number of proposer to get it to the ballot. I don't think ten is so high. And remember, no time limit on getting your ten. It just avoids endless voting.
I tend to agree with Gar. If less than ten are willing to endorse it even being discussed, then I don't see the discussion being overly profitable.
If you'll give me rights to a table in the database and a directory on the server, I'll volunteer to create the ballot when any choice voting is needed, and write to queries to tabulate as well.
A) Polling software is already half working
B) Let's not increase server load if we have a solution that doesn't do it.
I still want a minimum number of proposer to get it to the ballot
Why? [edit: by to the ballot do you mean to the discussion thread? That just puts in a longer wait -- I say let it go straight to discussion with just one person, and it will all get hashed out. or not. but to no detriment of the community]
>I still want a minimum number of proposers to get it to the ballot
Why?
To avoid endless numbers of [formal discussions and] votes on trivia.
[]=edit.
I think requiring ten will just lead to a lot of headache-inducing campaigning. Three is fine by me, since it would seem to circumvent the "We have to vote on everything anyone posts!" possibility.
I still want a minimum number of proposer to get it to the ballot
I like the minimum being 2 or 3, just so we don't REALLY have to vote and discuss the "Connor is HOTT" thread. Especially if we can only tackle one issue at a time (so one issue per week). It is going to take forever to get the list I made from WX voted on.
Or what LJ said!
(also, thanks for posting the issues again).
How about five (which was actually someones proposal) as a compromise.
But you don't
have
to discuss anything. I won't discuss anything I'm vehemently against. I'll just show up and vote no when the votes start.
edit: I really don't think we have enough things to vote on that we'd jam up the democratic process.
Oh! We could whiffle dumb suggestions.
But you don't have to discuss anything. I won't discuss anything I'm vehemently against. I'll just show up and vote no when the votes start.
I think the issue is more clogging the thread (which, if I'm reading correctly, can only handle one issue per week) than having to vote on things you don't care about.
Edit: I saw your edit. I think there might be a waiting list to start with, but I'm not sure we'll have that many votes after that.
