I guess what's frustrating to me is that we've been really close for awhile, but every time we seem to reach consensus (for example, I thought we'd agreed to try preferential voting this one time), the discussion goes in circles and gets dragged out some more. I just want to vote and get it over with.

I also really truly feel that once we do have the process nailed down, future issues will so much more smoothly than they ever have.

But I hear you David. I'll go to bed now and see where things stand in the morning.

I also really truly feel that once we do have the process nailed down, future issues will so much more smoothly than they ever have.

For the record, I still believe this. But I think we're starting to nail thumbs to the board at this point.

Happy to take a moment, or a week.

At this moment I'm so frazzled I think I'm agreeing with whoever posted last.

But whether we're close to the end or not, we really have come a long way.

We voted on stuff. The results are up and pretty much unambiguous.

Stage one is over, and there are two relatively minor points that need fixing, one of which we knew would probably need fixing anyway.

I know it seems insane to some people that there's been so much discussion of those two relatively minor points since then.

I share Jon's frustration that we're in the process of inventing a really good system for solving this kind of struggle for consensus and it's being delayed ... by this kind of struggle for consensus.

But if Hec and Burrell both say "let's take a week off", that's enough for me.

I love this place, that's why it matters. But the reason I love this place is because I love the people here, so if the debate is spoiling their enjoyment, that matters more.

Warning: This post may contain strongly worded content. Please do not disregard any future posts because I was miffed in this one.

---

I hate it. Personally. All of it.

Do remember that voting is a significant paradigm shift from the consensus approach that we've had so far. There is a real danger of people feeling strongly like, "This is not the community I embraced. These are not my values."

Think about the loony yet lovable libertarians among us. Think about what might work without redefining our culture so broadly. Consider that the ballot approving votes may be close to the outer limit for some people, not the beginning of a lot more.

I feel this. Strongly. I feel Plei's 'Fuck it.' Even enough to put my full stop inside my quotes.

I am going to post, because I think the issues matter (if only in the context of our very small, very specific web message board). However, I would prefer to be giving my energy to my professional woes, or the world crisis.

I read 'simple majority' as 'plurality' rather than 50%+1. However, it does not matter because I voted for 'super majority'. I did so because I felt that it should take more than a plurality or simple majority to justify a change to the boards. This means I expected that if a vote did not pass a 'super majority' the vote would be moot, the issue set aside. Since it failed, I expect that if a vote does not pass a 'majority' the vote will be moot, the issue set aside.

I dislike preferential voting because it took a damned long time to explain and understand. I don't care if it is simple, if it can be seen as simple, or can be simply explained. The reality is, we the bureaucratic did not understand it. How much more confusing to the masses?

See above re: vote moot, issue aside.

We've got two proposals: a 10-65 deathmatch, though some are arguing to tweak the numbers a little, and a 10,20,30,40,50,60 preferential vote.

The other option, which hasn't been proposed, and is really very simple, is to simply give people the numbers (voter turnout on the first vote, total registered users, and total frequent users (however that is defined) and have them type it in a little box, then pull the average.

But that'd just muddy the waters again, wouldn't it?

Also, BTW, as far as time off on the issue? Probably a good idea. BUT I'd suggest two days, rather than a week. Turn tempers down, give people a chance to think for a bit, but still keep it fresh in people's minds AND get the damn thing done before Buffy's over.

Gandalfe - the problem with an average is that one person voting 200 could skew the whole vote. Or to generalize more, if you suspect that a majority want a lower turnout requirement than you do, with averaging you have a serious incentive to vote for a higher turnout than you really want. If you suspect a majority want a higher turnout, you have the same serious incentive to vote for a lower turnout than you really want in order to compensate.

True. Well, instead of average, we could go for mean.

Hell, I'd even crunch the numbers, since I'm the fool who proposed it.

Gandalfe - I don't think a mean in this context would be any better. Unless you mean a median, and that would just be random. If we wanted a fair way to process the "everbody enter a number" there is a way - actually a slight modification something Maya suggested earlier. But that is Mathy, and thus liable to provoke wrath.