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.

ita - the proposal has 4 days discussion period built into it, and 3 days voting period.

Sophia, does this help on the quorum thing?... First quorum issue is regarding voting. Do we need a minimum number of Buffistas voting, to enact whatever it is we just voted on. So say I asked that the discussion thread be opened so that we could vote on whether or not we require Gar to post while wearing an "I love W" button. If only 3 people show up to vote, and two of us vote "yes", is that enough to require Gar to wear the "I love W" button. If we want a quorum of Buffistas voting, it's not enough. If we only care that the majority of those interested approved the measure, it's buttons for Gar.

Gar and billytea are saying that perhaps we need at least a minimum number of people to open up the discussion thread, never mind voting.

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.

Jon - I agree with that and will add wording to that effect to the motion. I'll then repost it.