Wow, I'm....overwhelmed by all the discussion and procedures. Not necessarily in a bad way, but...wow.

So, no voting yet? Cause it's not Wednesday yet?

Cindy probably isn't going to be around much after 5, although I was going to make an escape around 6, if we thought we were ready to post it then.

For the record, I don't think we need to stop this discussion this time, and so I don't think that we really need to wait that late to post it, unless we have reason to. Really, if jen gets a ballot at 10pm tonight, is it going to make things corrupt or dirty? No.

I think the best thing to do with #4 at this point would be to add a note that we will vote later on whether discussions end on day 4 or continue during the votes.

I'm with LJ.

So, no voting yet? Cause it's not Wednesday yet?

ita - although your feeling is to go with option one, how would you feel if we left it off until we could develop the *gag* discussion discussion some more?

Anyone? Bueller?

For the record, I don't think we need to stop this discussion this time, and so I don't think that we really need to wait that late to post it, unless we have reason to. Really, if jen gets a ballot at 10pm tonight, is it going to make things corrupt or dirty? No.

I don't think she should count a ballot that comes in at 10 pm. We said the voting would open at midnight. To me, that means the voting opens at midnight. discussion on the motin continues until we vote, therefore, the vote shouldn't be announced before-hand. What if someone comes up with a really good point at 11 pm. if we wanted to start voting at 5pm, we should have said so.

I am not sure why I feel so strongly about this, but it sort of smacks of just a few people making decisions, which is what we are trying to get away from. I don't want to take away anything from your hard work and effort, Cindy-- it is a great motion and I don't think there will be any changes.

hello... I'm also somewhat overwhelmed. After about the first 100 posts of this discussion, I thought I had something to add. Then, I was called away from the computer and found another 200 posts when I got back, and my thoughts were lost in the tidal wave. I'm glad others are keeping better track.

I remembered a little bit of it. One person said that only voting in e-mail was appropriate, since we have no way set up to poll on this board. Actually, at WX, one suggestion was made for voting in Bureacracy with one person taking on the task of tallying the votes (though I don't think that had much support) and one suggestion was made for designating a voter who could access Mr. Poll if someone knew the vote would be happening at a time they could not access it. I don't think that one would work very well, since the last poll (monkeys!) I noticed two different people volunteering and/or voting for one person who couldn't access the poll.

I don't really think these are important. The e-mail vote seems more reasonable to me, but, I did want to mention that they were suggested as possible.

I do, finally, have a question, though. Could we, if we have strong opinions about one part of this vote, but not about the others, vote YES or NO for one thing, and ABSTAIN for the others? For example, I'm not sure I'm convinced one way or another regarding simple majority or quorum.

Cindy, either way is good by me.

Uh, not to be annoying, but I just thought of another question.

If someone knows they won't be able to vote during the three day period, but otherwise thinks voting is a good idea, would they vote NO for voting if they didn't know there might be consideration for pre/absentee voting after this decision is made?

t /being annoying

Run that by me again, Deena?

If someone knows they won't be able to vote during the three day period, but otherwise thinks voting is a good idea, would they vote NO for voting if they didn't know there might be consideration for pre/absentee voting after this decision is made?

Personally, I think someone who liked voting but would vote no to the proposal because they knew they individually couldn't vote in one specific instance would be shooting themself in the foot. But that's me.

I think we have decided against extending the deadline for votes because someone's out of town, because that would never end. I have no problem with voting in advance for people who are around for the discussion but not the vote, assuming the tallyer is okay with it. Either way, it's outside the scope of this vote, but could be decided later.