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.

Since there's no secret ballot, and since I have not really participated to any great degree in the discussion so far, I would like to make a statement about why I am voting against voting.

I think this site is great. I think that it runs well, and I think that I trust the way decisions have been made so far during the time I have spent here. It seems as if the current Buffista-blah-blah-blah method currently in place both gives ample time to the discussion of any issue, and also has been fair to both sides of an issue.

I know a few people have gotten upset at me a time or two, but I have never felt singled out, never felt that I was being treated unfairly because I was new. And I have never felt that the people here made any decisions on a whim.

So even though I would normally feel that everyone having an equal vote is always the way decisions should be made, in this case I am making an exception to that rule, and I am doing so because I think this board is pretty great as is, so I don't really feel the need to make changes.

Just my two pennies. I'll go back to lurking in here now.

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.

I wasn't suggesting a change in the ballot, but in the explanation, however you're right, it's probably too late. It's just that paragraph that was causing the gears in my brain to stick. And the asterisks to an explanation of the majority in the context of item 2, as opposed to its context in item 3, just made my head hurt more.

Much thanks to everyone who is working through this. I do have a question, are we still discussing it now that the vote is open or is the topic now closed and people are just voting?

I think for the time being, we can still discuss, and then soon we'll decide if we want to cut discussion off or not.

I think since discussion/voting methods is on the ballot, discussion for this voting method is open-ended as it has always been. In other words, status quo.

Hey John, how's things? Tell me Sydney's beautiful.

...psst-- his wife's name is Thuy