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!

No worries, Jesse. I edited for context.

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.

In theory I agree, but given the short amount of time left where this is even an issue, I thought we might expedite it.

I know some people are impatient with this process. But others feel it has been rushed a bit. Also one reason we are having this discussion is that some people feel that our "consensus" process actually rushed things through, and let a few people who happen to be in Kafka at a certain time decide for a everyone.

And "Minyan" is fine with me.

Then again, being the Buffistias, why not make it "minion"?

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.

Obviously I disagree with both these statements because people can show they want an issue decided (or deference to the issue raisers) by posting in the discussion (here or in a separate thread if that's what is decided) without having to go ahead and vote abstention (which is also a bit oxymoronic.)

And regarding the number for quorum, I think 50 is way too high for most issues, and I would set it somewhere closer to 10. (FYI, minyan is 10 people.) The big issues (like the current one) will automatically get more people and the small issues - well I think 10 Buffistas should be enough to matter.

But we've gotten more than 50 votes on recent thread-naming polls. And I don't think 10 Buffistas are enough to make significant changes to the site. I don't, sorry. I'm sure there are many groups of 10 people who would like a new thread added. We can't afford to add that many new threads. Etc.