I'm wondering if the second ballot might need links back to the discussion. People might not understand all the issues or reasons why we think a separate discussion thread would be better than just keeping things in bureaucracy. I'm thinking we're starting to move away from obvious/intuitive kind of votes. Maybe we could have links to summary posts - one pro, one con. Just a thought.

My only proposal is that we call it anything but the Supreme Court thread, because of issues with making sense. That is all.

How about "The Council of Watchers" thread, just to remind us that we only want to go there as a last resort.

Some other possibilities: Thunderdome (two arguments go in, one comes out); The Cruciamentum; The Thread Decisive; Administrative Smackdown; Blah Blah Intensive; Speed Chess for Umwieldy Decisions; Open and Close; The Council of Blabber.

The Council of Blabber.

This!!

Also, the ballot could be fleshed out a little more, with the basic pros and cons, I guess.

I think we also need to decide when the voting periods are going to start. I would suggest that we have set days for discussion/voting during the week. For example, every Monday would be the opening of discussion on issues, and every Friday through Sunday would be the voting days (with allowance for absentee ballots for those who have no internet access on those days.) Any new issues raised during the week would be able to be discussed the following Monday in the discussion thread (if opened) or "officially discussed" in Bureaucracy, and all items set for vote can be on one ballot whose content will be formalized during the discussion period.

I think having the same days of the week for discussions and voting will make it easier on members to know what's going on. It will also prevent scenarios where Clem is Hott discussion starts Wednesday with voting on Sunday; Lorne is Purty discussion starts Saturday with voting on Wednesday; and changing the url from Buffistas to Angelistas post-Buffy series finale discussion starts Sunday with voting on Thursday. This way all three proposals could be discussed on the first Monday after the proposal has been approved for discussion (through seconds or whatever method) and voting could take place every Friday through the weekend. Yset-days-of-the-weekMV.

I think we also need to decide when the voting periods are going to start.

This strikes me as WAY overthinking. We start a voting period when somebody says "Time to vote!" and everybody says "Okay". And a new issue starts being discussed when somebody raises is, not the following Monday.

We need some process. We don't need large-corporation levels of process.

Although I was initially attracted to the order in Wolfram's suggestion, I think it presupposes a LOT of discussion and voting. Which is what i am trying to avoid. I know I talk a lot in here, but it is exhausting and is taking aay my time and energy for other threads.

I am hoping we go through this round and maybe 1 or 2 more to decide all the stuff that came up in WX.

Then, maybe we won't have to discuss or vote or think for a good long while.

I'm with Betsy. Also, Friday-Saturday-Sunday only voting is fine when it happens to come up, but as regular voting days, they're the most likely to catch people out any time there's a long weekend.

I am hoping we go through this round and maybe 1 or 2 more to decide all the stuff that came up in WX.

Then, maybe we won't have to discuss or vote or think for a good long while.

Ditto.

In terms of what we vote on - I think that we can leave off voting the Marcie question or the HTML page maybe - but if anyone wants (on behalf of themselves, not others) to vote it, then we need to consider. That is if someone seriously does not want a Marcie to exist, not being ultra-senstivie and worrried that someone else does not want a marcie, but not wanting a Marcie on their own behalf, then we may need to vote on it.

Similarly if someone does not want an HTML page for closed discussion items - not just wanting to vote on it "in case" someone does not want it , but for some reason not wanting to have it on their own behalf then we need to at least consider voting. If only one person does not want a marcie or does not want an HTML page, put not two - then we need to vote on the issue of seconds. That would let us decide what to vote on.

In point of fact, I propose the following.

Our next vote should be on turnout size. Our vote after that should be on the isssue of seconding.

Those two could be combined onto one ballot.

If seconding passes then our vote after that should be on number of seconds required.

And when those two (or three depending on whether seconding passes) votes have been taken, then we will actually have a procedure for other items on the agenda - including a way to decide whether Marcie or HTML page come to a vote.

I think a personality split is showing up here.

I'm very tired of talking about process. I understand that it's necessary to talk about process some. But it seems to me that we are getting horribly wrapped up in the minutiae of process.

For instance, why should people be able to vote on whether there's a MARCIE feature? MARCIE is like threadsuck. Use it if you want it, don't if you don't. But it's not your affair to say whether other people should want or use it.

I realize that this is a fascinating discussion to many of you, but the thought of having multiple votes to handle the ramifications of previous votes repels me.

Our vote after that should be on the isssue of seconding.

Those two could be combined onto one ballot.

If seconding passes then our vote after that should be on number of seconds required.

Can't we combine the number of seconds into this vote - I think we can do it just by adding zero as one of the choices.

I'd respectfully suggest that MARCIE has been decided on already. I don't think we want to start opening up settled questions just because we have this new process and certain things already decided just haven't been implemented yet.

(Though looking back at Rob's posts and others, if there are folks who want things like feedback incorporated, that would need to be discussed. FTR, I'm violently against that idea.)