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.

I'm with Holli. I thought Cindy was clear that she meant a Quorum in voting, not in discussing. We can figure out the discussing later. At this point, we don't even know if there is going to be a Supreme Court thread.