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.)

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.

What. BHP. Said.

Damn it.

MARCIE is on the feature to-do list. Features, IMO, aren't voting matters. They're coding matters.

All right. Yes we can have quorum size, and number of seconds combined in a single vote - as you say by making zero a choice.

But given that we are voting on two issues, both of which have a range of choices - then the argument for preference voting it this very rare case becomes really really strong.

And not voting on Marcie or HTML is fine with me.