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.)

Thread names - yes New threads - no

But wasn't jengod's example, which was just cited as a reason why preference voting would be necessary, thread names?

(OK, looking back, I see that he could have been refering to the quorum number thing. But really, there is no reason to decide that now, since we don't know how the vote went.)