Let me suggest these revisions:

Includes revisions but may still be a draft

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: SECONDS

A no vote on this item signifies that the voter wants items brought brought for formal discussion even if only one community member supports it.

# Item 4: 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 5: 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 and 3 : Quorum, yes vote: the minimum number will be a number to be determined by the community in a subsequent vote, if item 2 and/or 3 is voted in.

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

------- I don't think this is adding new items; it was discussed at the same time as item 2, and is what many people mean for item 2..

I think the language on quorums is pretty clear: it states that Item #2 is in reference to *voting only,* not the process of bringing proposals to a vote. How could it be better worded?

Holli - Xpost with my revision?

Nah. I'm fine with Cindy's version; yours works too, but I'm in favor of not messing with a good thing.

I'm fine with Cindy's version too, for the record.

OK - then I need to explain. Basically Cindy is leaving off something that came up at the same time as the "Quorum" thing. In fact what some people meant by "quorum" was what I meant by "seconds". But if quorum is passed without the "seconds" question being presented, then if the "seconds" question is presented later, after the "quorum" is passed then a lot of people will see it as redundant. I know they are not mutually exclusive - but a lot of people will support one or the other but not both. By putting up one, but not the other you are really weighting the vote in a particular direction.

At you know, this being done before a process is in place, I really think fairness requires bending over backwords not to create a ballot that is biased in a particular direction - even though I know no one would intentionally do it.

And again, I would point out that - given that discussion on WX was suspended for two days, if we take the Cindy's proposal as good as it is to be set in stone, we are closing off refining the proposal at least half a day before the minimum period that anyone has proposed. So if we say "nope to late to add an item" we doing something that so far has been pretty universally agreed would be unfair to do in the future.

Cindy - do you find my addition a huge expansion in scope? Because I really think it fits right into stuff you already have in there. I mean if you look at it, if you are going to discuss quorums first and then majority or not, mininum for a proposal really fits in there - and fits much more awkwardly if you delay it to a second round.

My head hurts now.

Sorry Kristen. I know I'm being stubborn. It is just that this is going to affect us for a long time; if this is worth doing at all , it is worth doing right.

No, it's not you. Or at least, all you. I can just see the word quorum only so many times before the room starts to spin and I need to lie down for a while.