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
Is point 2 Quorum addressing the minuimun number of interested parties in BUREACRACY needed to generate a vote, or is it the once we're in the thread, a certain number of people need to participate.
As far as the official motion goes, it's the number of people who show up to vote, and the question is asking do you agree there needs to be a (to be determined number) of voters voting, or will a majority of however many voters vote suffice.
But, now billytea and Gar are talking about how many people need to be interested in the issue before we can formally discuss it in the (not yet voted on) issues thread. I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves with that.
x-post OK Cindy Holiday issue can wait until voting issue is decided. Although I think a simple we can extend if there is a national holiday and someone points it out will not be tough to implement.
Can we wait and see on the seconders discussion and just let the ballot get decided on for now, and then talk about that sort of thing once we have a voting method, or am I just cranky and does it really belong on the voting proposal? And is that sentence as poorly constructed as I think it is?
That is fine with me, it just seems like we're discussing it now, so we might as well vote on it in one big vote.
I am understanding the quorum/majority right? I am having a lot of trouble with it.
"Discussion and/or voting could be extended in the event of major holidays."
Like Cindy said, let's leave some things to the discretion and good sense of the board when the time comes. Nobody's going to propose a vote over Christmas. And trust me, fitting things into Nilly's (and my) holiday schedule not to mention countless International holidays is going to be a lot bigger pain then you anticipate. Leave it for now.
, Austrialia, Canada, Great Britian/UK, Israel, Chile and Spain.
I was just guessing. I forgot Germany, for instance. We have no one in Chile, that I'm aware of. Which means little.
That's why I like big discussion times, like a 4 days min. But it seems people see more of these debates than I do, and with greater urgency.
But, now billytea and Gar are talking about how many people need to be interested in the issue before we can formally discuss it in the (not yet voted on) issues thread. I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves with that.
I'm good with getting the core stuff voted on first.
Like Cindy said, let's leave some things to the discretion and good sense of the board when the time comes.
Exactly. Cindy's original item was very specific. I'm trying to make it less so. No need to get into the definition of "holiday" right now, but I'd like to see an acknowledgement that the time periods can be extended in certain instances.
None of my blithering has anything to do with Cindy's suggestion. Really, all it needs is a volunteer, and then I can set up an e-mail forward to their e-mail addy, someone can note it in press, and we're off.
I am a freak. Therefore I will count votes.
Cindy - I do think we may need to refine the proposal a bit before voting. I know you and Hec are impatient to move on this - but it does seem that quorum is being used in two ways - number of votes needed for it to pass, vs. number needed to discuss -with some supporting one, some supporting the other and some supporting neither.
