Some people wanted 1 week, some the weekend, some 2 weeks, some "until the next show".

I think that 1 week, the weekend, and "until the next show" were pretty much equivalent. People clarified "until the next show" to mean "until when the next show ought to be," which is equivalent to one week. The way I'd see it working would be, someone could propose that it get changed to one week. It gets discussed, a lot of people think that's too short a time, and gets voted down. Then, someone could propose two weeks, and we could discuss the pros and cons of that without having to deal with trying to figure out the time frame at the same time as trying to figure out whether we want it changed at all.

edit:

Voter turnout was one such item mentioned: if we come to set an actual number, we may want more options than just 0 or 50 (for instance).

I mentioned that in my original post as something that could be decided later if we end up needing to decide it. I don't really see why we need to decide on how we'll choose a number if we don't know yet that we're going to need to choose a number anyway.

Also, for the imaginary future ballot we figure this out on... Quorum, defined as the number of vote (not voters) necessary to make a ballot valid, is:

1.) 10
2.) 25
3.) 50
4.) 100
5.) Abstain
6.) Write-in #: X

edit: sorry! was doing some self-editing, to keep things simple! 7) 8) were 5) 6)

And options 5) and 6) are butterflied off.

Dammit, the edit ate my punchline.

Example where we would want more that two or even three choices:

If we wanted quora, the number that constitutes a quorum. (and for that matter whether we use a number or percentage, and whether we revise the number periodically.)

If we want seconds, a similar question arises.

If we reject majority voting, the size of the super-majority.

The meta-question of how we handle questions which are not subject to a binary yes/no answer. Because there are at lease three possible answers.

A) Plurality

B) run-off

C) preference voting.

So that in itself is a non-binary question.

In short it is extremely likely that during this process we will end up confronting at least one question we can't answer with a single yes or no.

And Jengods example above is a perfect case for preference voting.

You know the thing, with the making people dizzy? I think you're still doing it, FWIW.

I understand the exercise, and the motivation, but if I were coming in to vote now, I'd be more tempted to vote against further voting than I would have been yesterday.

I was under the impression that thread names were seperate from this process.

OK shutting up now.

I was under the impression that thread names were seperate from this process.

Thread names - yes New threads - no

Yet another question: if voting is approved, will everything need to go to formal vote? It seems to me that there's something of a hierarchy of "importance" of issues to the community at large, such as, from least to most (is "thread" the right way to describe different folders / conferences / what have you? I'm blanking on what is correct)

Blocking obvious spammers

Changing the blurbs describing a thread

Naming a thread

Changing some policy on an existing thread (ie spoilers)

Creating a new thread

Banning a poster

I'm sure that I'm overlooking some issues that come up; I haven't read Bureaucracy for very long! Anyhow, maybe there should be some consideration (assuming voting passes) of what needs to be voted on, and what can be handled informally, by some consensus-like mechanism? Do you/we really need four days of discussion and three of voting the change the blurb on the front page when "Buffy" ends? Do you even need that much formality for naming Natter 27?

(hmm.. looks like unlurking is adictive.)