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.

(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 think this is whuffie. rob withdrew, and I say no ballot unless someone proposes it, here not at WX.

Marcie was already a feature, it just hasn't been included. I don't think we can vote on technical only things. do we vote on whether or not to have a search.

I this may be an argument for seconds.

Jesse made a proposal, which we need to modify, if needed, right?

I totally totally agree with the difference between features and policy items. And believe that a filter is a feature and feedback is a policy.

I also, as should be obvious by my earlier post, think that we can go ahead and vote on another whole bunch of procedural stuff right now.

Maybe we need to just set up a committee to beat this stuff into the ground?

I'm reposting Jesse's proposal so we can make some modifications:

OK, so based on what Sophia posted, and kind of stealing from Cindy's format, here's the first draft of a new ballot. It's very drafty:

ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD

Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?

A yes vote on this Item means you would like a new thread, that will be solely dedicated to formal discussion of future items put forward for voting. This thread will only be open during the designated days of formal discussion.

A no vote means you do not want a new thread. (Presumably in this case, all discussion will take place in Bureaucracy.)

----------------

ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION

Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?

A yes vote on this item means that you would like to end all discussion on a given item when voting starts.

A no vote means you would like to continue discussion through the voting period.

----------------

ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT

How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? Do abstentions count toward this?

For the first part, I propose a set of choices: 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, other. Or some other set. And I don't know if we should do preferential voting or not. Sorry.

For the second part, it's a simple yes or no.

If you vote yes, you would allow people to register their vote as an abstention -- that is, with no preference for either choice -- and that vote would count toward the minimum number.

If you vote no, you want only votes that prefer one option to count toward the minimum.

----------------

ITEM 4: SECONDS

How many Buffistas should it take to bring a proposal to a formal discussion and vote?

a. 0 b. 3 c. ? d. some other number?

(OK, so the actual question would be something like this: Before a proposal moves to formal discussion, is there a minimum number of people who have to agree? Or something. I'm kind of lost. Ideas on phrasing?)

I suppose my suggestion of set voting days can be taken up if we see that there are constantly issues that need to be voted on. I still like the ability to know that hey, it's voting day, so make sure to get your ballots in before Sunday or whatever, but I can see the POV that we hope never to need that much order.

Regarding the number of Seconds and the number for a Quorum, I would suggest that instead of voting on ranges we allow people to fill in a number, and after the vote we post the results. That way we can extrapolate where the majority votes lay, rather than figure out what ranges to put and which voting and counting methods to use.

I think Wolfram's suggestion that people have the chance to input a number could work, though it would probably mean a second vote to finalize based on the range of responses.

If we do have have set numbers to vote on, I like the quorum options to start with 10 rather than 25. For the seconds, I'd suggest zero, three, five, and ten. Is there anyone who thinks it needs to go higher?