The quorum, as I understood it, is to get a discussion started. Once it's started, no matter how the vote goes, it can't be raised again for an undetermined period of time. The vote may be simple majority, it may not.

Some people have already stated their intent to quora for discussions they won't vote on.

Would every issue have the same quorum? That seems ... flat.

Bigger quorum for "constitutional" issues, maybe. Which may also require more than simple majority.

I think quorum isn't just to start the discussion in the proposed Supreme Court thread or trigger a vote, but to ensure the validity of the vote. A certain number of people would need to vote for it to be valid.

The quorum, as I understood it, is to get a discussion started.

I don't think that's how the current question reads. Some people were making a distinction between seconds, which is what I'd call what you're talking about, and a quorum, which only comes into effect at vote time.

I'm not completely sold on the idea that we need either, but especially the quorum.

Which we're voting on, so we shall see.

Whoops. Sorry. Still, once the vote is done, the thinking was to make the discussion stop for a period, right? So not winning is losing, however it goes down?

I'd say so. But your yes votes don't have to exceed no votes and abstentions combined, just the nos.

Still, once the vote is done, the thinking was to make the discussion stop for a period, right?

I think the idea was just to see if there was will to move towards voting and how that would work. I expect once voting is in place, there will probably be a period where folks try to prioritize a few things for voting on. There were a lot of issues which were put aside until we could establish a process of decision.

Some people were making a distinction between seconds, which is what I'd call what you're talking about, and a quorum, which only comes into effect at vote time.

I was imagining it that way. Rebecca says on Bureaucracy that she wants the thread. If nobody even says "fair enough, that's worth a vote" then it just stops right there. You have to have at least some backing to get to the vote stage.

Then the vote, which isn't binding unless n people vote. And which she doesn't win unless the yes-votes are greater than the no-votes by a certain proportion.

I understand that, Hec. My question, however, is wasn't that what was being tossed around?

There are no concrete answers for John, so I'm going for the tone of the discussion.

Ok, I think I misunderstood what you were asking.

My feeling is that there's some chomping at the bit to decide on things like the discussion thread and settle any questions of percentages/time limits that may come up after this vote. Procedural stuff, IOW.

I happy with the "no concrete answers" thing, really. I'm just kind of thinking aloud to make sure I'm seeing it the way others are seeing it.