Brenda m and I also volunteered.

I had been thinking that if there is ever an issue, that 2 people should count, but as ita said, this is a workaround right now and will be automated.

I would assume that if we decided to vote on things, that the poll would move up in priority on the developer list?

Filling up a quorum with abstentions is nonsensical and defeats the purpose of having a quorum. To keep members apprised of the votes they are posted in Press. To find out who cares about the issue, count the yay or nay votes. "Don't care" votes are useless. And obviously if somebody does not care about an issue either way they should not have to come in and vote on it. If enough people don't care about the issue, then there won't be a quorum and that will decide the issue on its own.

Of course, I abstained on the quorum question because I really, really had a hard time understanding the concept and couldn't form an opinion.

Of course, I abstained on the quorum question because I really, really had a hard time understanding the concept and couldn't form an opinion.

Quorum in a nutshell:

Anathema proposes a Clem is Hott thread. He and Wolfram vote yes. Nobody else does a damn thing. If voting ended and there was no quorum requirement, a stompy would now have to make a Clem is Hott thread, since the vote was 2 - 0 for it.

If there was a 10 member quorum, Clem's hottitude would remain unappreciated under the previous scenario, unless 8 other Buffistas participated in the vote. (And Clem's sexiness carried the day.)

The reason is that "quorum" is not really the ideal name for what we are voting on.

Forget what quorum means in other contexts. In this context, it clearly means that we set a minimum number of votes that must be cast for the vote to count. If we set a quorum of, say, fifteen - then if fewer than fifteen people vote on an issue it does not pass. If fifteen or more pass, then it passes provided the yes votes exceed the no votes.

So eight people vote for. Seven people vote against. It passes. Eight people vote for, but six people vote against, you don't have quorum, and the measure fails. The same principle would apply with small and larger numbers.

There is also the question of seconds - which we are not yet voting onst. This is a minimum amount of support you need to go through the voting process. For example, we could require that any motion to bring something to formal discussion and a vote require at least one second. We would be saying that if two people support it is worth going through the formal process - if a minority of one is the only person willing to publicly favor it, it is not worth the trouble. I would actually want at least four "seconds" for a total of five supporters before the formal process begins. One reason I want this, is that if someone has what they think is a brilliant idea, they get a chance to hear some public criticism, and realize - this a really, really stupid idea. (Er this is based on personal experience. I have made suggestions, then found out there are good reasons against them, and withdrawn them. The only way I could have found this out was by making the suggestion, since often the reason was against was something I would not have thought of or based on information I did not have. I would really hate to think, that as soon as I made a proposal it would go to a formal vote without my having a chance to hear informal discussion, and withdraw it.)

t Partial X-post with Wolfram.

Filling up a quorum with abstentions is nonsensical and defeats the purpose of having a quorum.

I disagree. I might care enough about an issue to think that it should be decided one way or another, even if I personally have mixed feelings on the issue. I just want it decided!

Of course, I abstained on the quorum question because I really, really had a hard time understanding the concept and couldn't form an opinion.

Sophia is me. And I was embarrassed about it, too, because Cindy went to such extra pains to explain it, and I just got more muddled.

In usage on this board, does "a quorum" mean that a certain minimum percentage of registered users must vote, either for or against, in order for a subject to be decided? Whereas a subject allowed to pass by a "simple majority" would pass by a vote of 51% to 49% of however many or few people vote?

I disagree. I might care enough about an issue to think that it should be decided one way or another, even if I personally have mixed feelings on the issue. I just want it decided!

Exactly, also, many people may just not give a damn about an issue, one way or another, but cast an abstaining vote out of deference to those who care deeply.

In usage on this board, does "a quorum" mean that a certain minimum percentage of registered users must vote, either for or against, in order for a subject to be decided? Whereas a subject allowed to pass by a "simple majority" would pass by a vote of 51% to 49% of however many or few people vote?

Yes. Except that voted abstentions count as well. Also, a quorum is not necessarily a percentage of registered users. We could set an absolute number.

low enough that the people who want to end non-spoiler whitefonting in NAFDA threads won't have to lobby 300 registered voters to weigh in on the issue.

Speaking of which, could we include this in the next ballot? I know it's not a constitutional issue, but it does seem we were reaching a consensus on this before the board went kablooey. (IIRC, it was white-fonting things from new episodes in the other shows' thread, but only for a week). I don't want that to get lost in the shuffle, since it seems that cross-discussion might become more important fairly soon.

I suggest that we stop using the word quorum, and instead talk about our minimum number of votes needed, if that's what we mean.