Michelle - I notice your email isn't in your profile. I don't know if that has anything to do with it or not though, because Steph's email address is in her profile.

Cindy--

Do you think you could link to the post in Press as a clarification? Wolfram and I can't be the only poor souls who need a Quorums for Dummies (TM) explaination.

I cross posted it instead, Sophia.

edited to add the ">"

6. David mentions consensus and banning procedures: [link]

My comments are actually at post 1840.

Here's the actual link to David's post (remember that the displayed post number at WX often doesn't match the system post number due to deletions):

[link]

Thanks DX. I was really nodding off at that point!

DX, I think you have your login in that link.

Thanks, billytea.

Just a quick word to everybody who stuck with this and didn't let it devolve into another dead end discussion. All the folks who did the work, all the people who brought up points major and minor and everyone who addressed those points, made the ballot, made the ballot available and workable, and those who posted the announcements.

Personally, my head has been full of sludge the last couple of days and comprehending everything has been difficult for me, but I've read every post (some four or five times till I was sure I got it). Very much like ita, I tend to speak my piece about a subject once or twice, then wander away and let others hash it out. I'm glad I stayed with the discussion and the process this time. I hope and believe this process will be generally accepted, streamlined and useful in the future, and will help negate that feeling of itchy-irritatedness that's been plaguing Phoenix's atmo of late.

I love you all, thank you from my heart for your dedication and tenacity.

eta:spelling

Do you think you could link to the post in Press as a clarification? Wolfram and I can't be the only poor souls who need a Quorums for Dummies (TM) explaination.

The confusing part for me is in the following paragraph in item 2 (Quorum vote):

A no vote on this item signifies the voter wants implemented the decision of the majority** of voters who participated, regardless of the number of total votes. (empasis added.)

If I may suggest, at this late date, a change in the text to read:

A no vote on this item signifies the voter does not feel a minimum* number of community members need vote on any item in order for the vote to count.

I like the idea of some things being decided by simple majority, but major stuff needing a higher majority

That's why I voted no to the simple majority. Even though I think most things are fine that way.

Wolfram - We can't change the ballot after some people have voted. That looks dirty, even though it's not. A clarification has been posted and in fact the "**" in the ballot post also clarified it in the first post - because it defined what the word majority meant in the context of that particular discussion.

Really, it's enough.

And at this point if you think some things need more than a simple majority then you are right to vote against it. If a majority vote against a simple majority than we will have more discussion and adapt something else - which might well be a simple majority sometimes, supermajorities others.

I actually favor another alternative - one I will bring up during the discussion period for quorum sizes. I favor a simple majority for all decisions, but a very small quorum for most decisions, but a larger quorum, perhaps thirty or fifty for stuff this major, stuff on the constitutional level. Normally I'm with the "If you don't vote, your non-vote does not count" crowd. But when it comes to costitutional changes, defining long term rules, I think if not enough people pay attention, it should not pass.