Giles ,'Sleeper'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Some people, with a sense of I dunno, consistency, voted no on majority voting and then abstained from the rest. Others voted no and then still had opinions.
Some of us assumed we'd be in the minority on issue #1, and yet didn't feel that that should make our opinions on issues #2-4 invalid.
No, that's totally cool! I thought it was totally cool! It was, like, honorable.
The big jump on Saturday (300%) suggests that we make sure to have at least 1 of the voting days be a weekend day, for those who can't do it at work.
He's kidding, right?
He's kidding, right?
You might want to ask him, but why are you so convinced?
Dost Gandalfe jest?
Because Saturday had *6* people. And if we're always wiggling around trying to grab a weekend day for voting we're going to get even more mired down.
Kind of, but it could be a statistically significant point. Are those really people whose voices shouldn't be heard? We really want to ignore 6.6% of the populace? Are we going to be democratic, or only democratic when it's convenient?
it could be a statistically significant point.
An increase from 2 to 6 is not statistically significant. t /pedantic actuary
</pedantic actuary>
There's another sort?
If those were the only two points, it damn well would be. As an actuary, with this small a sample, would you consider 6.6% significant?
An increase from 2 to 6 is not statistically significant.
Strictly, that depends on what you're measuring. t /equally pedantic actuary