Except that voted abstentions count as well.

We haven't actually decided this, right?

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?

A "quorum" doesn't need to be a majority. It just needs to be a set number. My suggestion is we use the current round of voting as a yardstick to figure out about how many people are "really" active (as opposed to those who just swing by once to say "JOSH!!! I LUV U JOSH!!! FRIERFLI4EVAH!!!" and set a fraction of those votes as the quorum.

For example, say the current round of voting--which seems brisk--indicates about a 100 "active, participating members." We could then set a quorum from that at, say, half, or even a third or a quarter. Personally, I think 50 minimum votes, including abstentions, is jim dandy.

The upshot, of course, is that means we need to have a vote to decide what the "quorum" is if that method wins. Sigh. I suppose we can also name the next Bureaucracy thread: "We Need to Decide How to Decide Things."

Jesse is me. In fact, I'm thinking of banning all words beginning in Qu from my vocabulary. This is going to make it tough to ask form my "**een of all things" mug at home. But it's the only way I don't see my head exploding on the carpet.

I like the quorum idea (though I'd want it to be quite low -- say, 10). I think abstentations can be useful if it's a multi-issue ballot so it's clear the person did read the question and chose not to vote. However, I don't think they should count towards percentages -- it should be viewed as basically no ballot at all.

The upshot, of course, is that means we need to have a vote to decide what the "quorum" is if that method wins.

Yup, that's the plan.

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.

could we include this in the next ballot?

Unfortunately, I think we still need to iron out some process questions first.

Was there anyone opposed to a one week grace period? I know that people were tossing around various proposals, but I don't remember anyone saying they thought one week was too short.

If we can reach a strong consensus on the issue now, I don't see why we need to wait for a vote.

Was there anyone opposed to a one week grace period? I know that people were tossing around various proposals, but I don't remember anyone saying they thought one week was too short.

There were a couple of people who thought one week total for discussion and voting was too short. At least, a couple who spoke up here, and one of them was Liese, who's not here now.

If we don't like 'quorum' could we say 'minyan' instead?

... Okay, just me.

If we can reach a strong consensus on the issue now, I don't see why we need to wait for a vote.

Because it seems to me that if we say we're establishing a new policy, we should handle all issues through that new policy. Otherwise, it (to me) seems like we're confused, and not really committed to changing anything.

That said, I don't remember anyone objecting to a week. I think it's a bit short for people who are getting tapes from elsewhere, but it is probably the sanest choice, and the easiest thing for people to remember.

Crap, now I realize what Jon was talking about. Nevermind!