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?

Also, I changed Jesse's last question a bit.

I was trying to do a pro/con for the formal thread, and was realizing that we have to vote on whether or not we want to put a moratorium on a proposal for a certain period BEFORE we vote on the thread-- as a lot of my pros have to do with the ease of making the discussion stop (by turning off the thread)

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.

Heh. And some folks thought a preferential ballot would be complicated?

I think Items 1 and 2 above are fine as is.

ITEM 3a: VOTER TURNOUT

How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? I propose a set of choices: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60 to be determined by the Australian method of preferential voting.

ITEM 3b: ABSTENTIONS

Do abstentions count toward the number in 3a? 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

Before a proposal moves to formal discussion, what should be the minimum number of people who have to "second" the motion? 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 to be determined by the Australian method of preferential voting.

Jon's modifications work for me. We'll need a brief and simple (hah) explanation of Austrailian Rules Voting to attach, though.

Heh. And some folks thought a preferential ballot would be complicated?

I'm trying to uncomplicate it by allowing everyone to post a number without artificially skewing the results. Then we can argue about how to interpret the numbers (although my gut sense with no way of backing this up is that after the vote it will be fairly straightforward.)

Even if we do end up with a range, I think we still need to include a write-in option for the Quorum and Second votes so everyone's opinion gets represented fairly. And of course to give some of us a chance to vote Monkey.

I like that, Jon, but like Brendas numbers for the seconds more. I think a few people like the "10" for a "second"

Can we add item 1a.-- "So mote it be...."

After a complete round of voting, the proposal cannot be voted on again for:

a) 0 days b) 6 months c) 1 year.

I think we still need to include a write-in option for the Quorum and Second votes so everyone's opinion gets represented fairly.

I think we need to decide now, by consensus, what the range of choices should be. I'm trying to prevent multiple votes. I've suggested a range of numbers for each question. If anyone thinks that there should be more specific choices, then voice your opinion.