Mostly, I just want to start the time-limited discussions.

I'm wondering if anyone who opposes having seconds on this ballot supports it in general?

Me. I think seconds are a good idea. I also think that this ballot is deciding things related to how we decide things, and that seconds belong in a discussion on how we propose things.

All right. The "it should be on this ballot" is pretty much a minority of one. I'm not sorry I tried, but I won't take any more of your time on the issue.

And I'm not sorry you brought it up. That's what these discussions are for!

I'm just moved to say that I've read two hundred posts and didn't understand any one of them, 'cause I'm still sick, but I trust and will adhere to whatever ends up getting done.

God, I never thought I'd hear myself say that.

I think the seconds conversation falls most naturally within the discussion of whether to open the discussion thread at all. So not yet.

At any rate, I'm having a hard time imagining a serious discussion request that wouldn't get at least a few nods of approval, so I'm not sure it's that big a deal anyway. If nothing else, there'll be people chiming in saying "I'm not interested, but if so-and-so wants to discuss it, we should."

My one problem with the quorum question is that without specifying a number it's hard to judge what the effect will be. A quorum of 15 is a very different thing than a quorum of 50.

I have nothing to add to this conversation. It goes far beyond my meagre understanding of voting procedure. (Hell, the last time I voted I was handed a pencil (yes, a #2 pencil) and made an X in a bubble next to the name of the person I was voting for. This was a Federal election.) But that does not mean that I am not interested, and it does not mean that I will not participate more fully in matters that I am either very passionate about or very knowledgeable about. Please note that passion and knowledge do not always coincide.

All I can add at this point is, "No butterfly ballots. I'm confused enough over here."

buffistas.org: where pregnant chad means MPREG.

Any glaring errors? The wording may need refining, but I think it's time to fish or cut bait on voting, because we're getting bogged down in other issues again -- issues that would be best served by having some sort of decision making process in place, whether that process involves voting or me picking numbers out of my arse.

I'm glad that Cindy is cracking the whip and keeping the focus. Which is not to say that I object to Gar trying to get it all down. But I do think the Seconds question comes after this ballot.

I second Cindy's language for the ballot. I am beginning to fear the bogging down effect. Nothing else can happen until we get the voting in place. Once that is in place, all the other points can be put to a vote. So let's stay very focused on getting through the first ballot without drifting off into other topics right now.

Let that be the standard for the nonce: Is it about voting? Is it about this ballot? If it's not, then it'll wait.

Excepting of course regular Bureaucracy matters.