The more I read ths thread, the more I understand the FAQ entry about "how many buffistas does it take to screw in a lightbulb"...

And you see how that segues into the "lightbulbs? what about candles???" conversation?

(Where is that, again? Was it actually a segue?)

Neon tubes are actually better for your eyes, I've heard...

So we might decide that you need at least five votes to open something up for discussion, or we might mean it cannot pass without five total (combined) yes and no votes, or it might mean both. Meaning that if we agree on a quorum we will have to have further discussion and vote as to how it works.

I just think we need to take a vote on the vote, before we get into that. In the motion above, it only refers to whether we want a certain numbers of voters showing up to vote, or whether any majority or voters rules.

I think after we have a voting method in place, then we can move to the level of detail that decides whether or not we need a quorum to even open up a discussion.

I understand the difference, but I don't think we can discuss the rules for the discussion thread, because we're not even certain we will have one. There were Buffistas, both here and at WXing over the weekend who didn't even seem in favor of voting. There were more who didn't seem in favor of a separate discussion thread. I don't know how we can create the rules for a thread that might get voted down.

A quorum is the minimum number of members necessary to transact business. We're trying to get away from using our "impressions" of what transpired in this thread, and see what the people really want to do. When discussing voting, voting is the business at hand. When discussing discussion, discussion is the business at hand.

Abe Lincoln read by the fireplace.

Thanks, Cindy! And jengod for the counting!

I'm very excited that once we've nailed down how we decide things, we can get right to the deciding! First off, do we want a separate proposal discussion thread or not?

Fine - but I note that you do have the quorum question in the proposal. I don't think we should vote on the quorum and not the other or without deciding what quorum means. I mean if want to postpone quorum discussion then it should not be in the proposal. But if it is going to be in the proposal or agenda or whatever (and I gather we are voting on all of this in one email) then both forms should be there. I mean otherwise you are deciding stuff by what you exclude from the agenda.

The how we decide what to discuss discussion and decision comes next, I think.

Christ, I can't believe I just typed that.

Are we nailed down on the language? Am I supposed to post in Press?

And for anyone posting the votes address and the proposal, please add this:

For the love of Joss, please include your username at the top of your message. This prevents repeat voting and will help me keep all your votes straight. Thank you!

I suggest posting a format for voting for example:

Item 1) yes Item 2) no Item 3) porn Item 4) yes

That way you won't have to read long posts like: I think that Item 1 is a yes modified with the following caveat, rather than having a vote....blah blah blah....and Item 2 it depends, if you mean.....You get the picture.

I don't think we are nailed on the language.

If we are going to vote on quorums then we should vote on whether to have a minimum number of concurrences before we vote. If we are not going to include concurrences, then we should not include quorums. I mean otherwise we are decding by what we exclude from the vote.

And I will note that if WX is not counted (and it should not be) we are finalizing the language before the absolute minimum time anyone has proposed. There is a reason a discussion period was suggested before we start voting - to avoid exactly this.