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.

Gar - the problem with the "seconds" addition is we'll have to vote on whether or not to have a supreme court (or similar) thread. There were posters who were against taking it that far. I do think adding the quorum-necessary-for-discussion is a huge leap in scope.

After we have a voting procedure in place, we address whether or not to require that a proposal gets seconded for even discussing it.

The item in the current motion only address how we want to vote. One of the issues (that could conceivably happen even if a quorum turned up for the discussion) to consider when deciding on a voting process is what to do if we put an issue up for a vote and only a handful of people can be arsed to vote on it at all.

Not including the discussion quorum/seconds item doesn't make it go away. It can and should be brought to vote as well. But we need a voting procedure approved first.

I'd agree to a discussion on a topic I end up not caring enough about to vote on.

Me too. In fact, I'm against making someone rally support to discuss an issue. We've never done it that way here. So when we do vote on seconds at some point, I'll vote against it, and if it passes anyway, I'll second any point anyone wants to discuss. Because if a Buffista wants to discuss something at the Buffista board, a Buffista should get to discuss something.