I fear we are getting too bogged down again and will never get anywhere, so I am making a motion based on the main issues concerning voting itself.

I move we hold our initial vote (to see whether or not we'll vote) starting at 12:00am Eastern Time (board time) Wednesday and continuing through until the end of Friday (12:00am Eastern Time, Saturday). Included in this motion are the following items to be included in the vote.

• Item 1: VOTING

A yes vote on this item signifies the voter agrees that we should create a voting system for community decisions that do not require immediate action.

Exemptions: Thread naming, disciplinary action against trolls (although the process itself could come up for a vote at some point) and tasks currently performed by Stompy Feet, including but not limited to board maintenance.

A no vote on this item signifies that the voter does not agree to a voting process to determine the community's will as it pertains to community decisions.

• Item 2: QUORUMS

A yes vote on this item signifies the voter wants a minimum* number of community members voting on any item in order for the vote to count.

A no vote on this item signifies the voter wants implemented the decision of the majority** of voters who participated, regardless of the number of total votes.

• Item 3: SIMPLE MAJORITY

A yes vote on this item signifies the voter agrees that a simple majority vote is sufficient to enact changes for any issue brought up for vote.

If this item passes, we will hold a discussion and vote on how to handle ties. If it doesn't pass, the point is moot.

Regarless, this item does not affect the outcome of Item 2. In other words, if people vote in favor of requiring a quorum on any issue, the quorum requirement will still stand and the smallest majority that would allow an initiative to be voted in would equal [one half + one] of the votes needed for the quorum.

A no vote on this item signifies the voter does not think a simple majority is sufficient to enact change for any initiative brought up for vote, and instead wants a higher majority.

If item is voted down, the size of the higher majority required will be put up for a separate vote.

• Item 4: Discussion and Voting Period Time Limits

A yes vote on this item signifies the voter agrees that a full week's time is sufficient to discuss the issue. The week would be broken down thusly: Discussion: Days 1, 2, 3, and 4. Voting: Days 5, 6, 7. NOTE - added on edit *** When there is a conflict for major holidays (to be defined) we will make accomodations (to be defined) as needed. ***

A no vote on this item signifies that the voter doesn't agree with this timetable and is requesting that the community continue to discuss timetables.

------

* for Item 2: Quorum, yes vote: the minimum number will be a number to be determined by the community in a subsequent vote, if item 2 is voted in.

** for Item 2: Quorum, no vote: "majority" is a percentage to be determined by the community in a subsequent vote.

-------

Any glaring errors? The wording may need refining, but I think it's time to fish or cut bait on voting, because we're getting bogged down in other issues again -- issues that would be best served by having some sort of decision making process in place, whether that process involves voting or me picking numbers out of my arse.

---------------------

Attention: The following item has been removed from the motion. I am preserving the text below, on the very-off chance that someone has a valid reason to reinstate it. But for now, I emend my motion to include only the first 4 items.

*************************************

THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED FROM THE MOTION

• Item 5: VOTING METHOD

A yes vote on this item signifies the voter agrees to cast votes via email until such time as a poll function can be added to the Buffistas.org site.

A no vote on this item signifies the voter does not agree to vote via email.

If a voter has voted "no" on item one, it is still recommended he vote on item five, with the assumption that item 1 will probably pass.

Wolfram, what's your suggestion for preventing Bureaucracy getting clogged with endless discussion lobbying?

Euthanasia?

Wolfram, what's your suggestion for preventing Bureaucracy getting clogged with endless discussion lobbying?

If endless discussion lobbying is likely to be a genuine problem (I seriously doubt it, myself), better that it be on a messier thread such as this than on a discussion thread created explicitly to avoid that kind of noise.

Cindy, you're missing a closing font tag.

If endless discussion lobbying is likely to be a genuine problem (I seriously doubt it, myself),

Have you *met* the Monkey people? But seriously -- you wouldn't lobby to get a discussion opened once the discussion is open. That's what I was trying to forestall.

I second Cindy's motion in its entirety.

I think the question of email or not is a technical question. We plan to set up a polling system eventually. Until then e-mail is the only available method. I did suggest and intermediate thing we can do - (I would create polls one at a time on the server, which is very simple compared to doing a true polling set up.) But ita pointed out it could cause server load. That means there is no practical alternative to e-mail. So there is no point in voting on e-mail because there is no alternative.

I third Cindy's post.

OK I'lll forth it. I guess no harm in just yes on e-mail.

(I would create polls one at a time on the server, which is very simple compared to doing a true polling set up.)

But there'd still need to be HTML, Phoenix compatible additions, error checking, etc. Which is why I vote e-mail all the way, until later.

Have you *met* the Monkey people? But seriously -- you wouldn't lobby to get a discussion opened once the discussion is open.

But this isn't true. If not even five people are interested in discussing it, then being allowed to put it on another thread does not open the discussion in any meaningful sense. If they'd clog the bureacracy thread with endless lobbying, they'd have the same need and do the same in the discussion thread.