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.

I third Cindy's motion.

Should we post Cindy's motion in Press, saying we have very particular points to discuss now and people are welcome to weigh in?

I'm thinking we should. I will. If we don't think we're ready though, it's fine by me.

Gar - I was thinking this morning about this whole issue. What I didn't say well last night is that although people seem in favor of voting (or at least voting on voting) there are some people that want the discussion process formalized, some that want it only a bit more formalized, and some that don't want it formalized at all. I think the issue of seconding a topic for the discussion thread is a worthy one for discussion; I just think voting on it belongs on any votes we may take on the discussion process as a whole.

From reading the discussion in bureaucracy thread at WX during the Phoenix down time, I'm inclined to think the conversation here on the discussion process is likely to be where things get intense-in-a-Buffista way. I know last night I said I wouldn't vote for seconding but this morning it seemed like a good idea to me. I just don't want to shove it into the vote issue or leave anyone feeling like we shoved it into the vote issue. Last night, I came across as more opposed to the idea

a) than I actually am

b) than I meant to

I know you already bowed on the idea, but I didn't want the conversation to end with any vibe that feels like censorship. I want it to get a fair hearing. I'm really glad your involved in this, because I think you bring a lot of talent to the discussion. Sorry if to you and anyone else out there who I might have left feeling sort of itchy.

Thanks, Cindy, for your work on wording the proposals.

I'd like to include the Supreme Court thread, seconds issue, and proposed six-month period for no discussion on motions that don't pass on this ballot, both because it seems to me that they're of a piece with what we've been discussing and so that we can get the admin stuff out of the way fairly quickly and move on to some of the things on Sophia's list. But I do understand the concern that we're including too many things in this single vote.

As for the seconds question -- I dislike the idea of having to raly support before an issue can be discussed, and I share ita's fear that requiring seconds would lead to Issues That Will Not Die. At the same time, I bet most of us would withdraw proposals before the formal process started if it was clear no one else liked the idea.

Something to discuss down the road: How will we handle waiting lists of items to vote on? Do certain things automatically hop to the head of the line, or is it going to be straight first-come, first-serve?

I just have to say again that I would really really love to be able to DECIDE on the things in Cindy's proposal before we start discussing anything else. Getting into all the other stuff will push it all off for another couple of days, and we haven't even established that Buffistas WANT to vote for stuff!