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.

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

If the voting is starting Wednesday at midnight (i.e. Tuesday night) as Cindy has proposed, then I don't think we should post in Press until Tuesday night.

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.

I disagree with this, because I believe the "seconds" question (which has nothing to do with quorum) is a separate issue that should be addressed separately. Right now, the question under consideration is how we are going to decide if proposals are passed. We have not even begun to discuss how those proposals are made, discussed, nailed down, whatever. That comes next.

That said, I think a link to Cindy's 2nd proposal post should be made in Press, with a note to see the following conversation as well.

I disagree with this, because I believe the "seconds" question (which has nothing to do with quorum) is a separate issue that should be addressed separately. Right now, the question under consideration is how we are going to decide if proposals are passed. We have not even begun to discuss how those proposals are made, discussed, nailed down, whatever. That comes next.

But one of the items is length of discussion period. So we are talking about how items are discussed. Which the question of "seconds" is part of.

And quorum and seconds have nothing formally to do with each other. But a lot of people will feel that having both is overkill (me for one) which means that if quorum is passed without seconds being voted on, it makes seconding less likely to pass.

Seriously? You think if five people agree to a discussion, it doesn't matter how many people end up voting on an issue? Because I'd agree to a discussion on a topic I end up not caring enough about to vote on.

And also,

But one of the items is length of discussion period. So we are talking about how items are discussed. Which the question of "seconds" is part of.

We're just talking length of time. I think seconds or not, four days is reasonable.