Hmm - do we want to add another question (so as to end the discussion one way or another). If majority means 50%+1 do you want to handle cases that require with with a series of run-offs or with instant runoff via preferential voting?

It would need better phrasing - but is that too hot to include right now, or can it be included? Because if it was included, it would end the discussion on that point sooner. Also it makes an implication of 50%+1 clear.

Could somebody come close a bold in Natter?

I'm obviously for the vote.

Anthama - right the vote will take place - but we did agree to a discussio period. Also wording is not finalized. We can add another questions still, but I'm not yet making it formal proposal because if people are going to go nuclear it can wait.

I like Typo's idea, although I think we need to include a linked definition of preferential voting.

Really, a group of officers should be elected to a set time period. They should be responsible for watching the thread and setting up a vote on any issue that has been proposed and seconded. That way things happen according to a system and not through endless and repetitive debate.

But I have a feeling that electing officers might take a year and a half.

Anthama - right the vote will take place - but we did agree to a discussio period. Also wording is not finalized. We can add another questions still, but I'm not yet making it formal proposal because if people are going to go nuclear it can wait.

Not to jump on Typo, but this is flat out wrong.

A proposal was made and seconded. Once that happens, you vote. You don't then sit around and rework the proposal until the people who happen to be in thread at the time are happy.

Once a proposal has been made and seconded, you vote on it. Period. You don't change the proposal, because it was seconded as is.

This is exactly what is driving me (and, I think, other laissez-faire people) nuts.

Something simple is proposed. People say "Yes, let's do it." Somebody says "wait, you haven't covered this corner case!" Somebody else says "Is this really what we want to do about the corner case?"

It seems to me that we're insisting on the 100% perfect solution every time, and that the pursuit of perfection is getting in the way of closing discussion and getting things done.

I do not want to get into preferential voting right now. The discussion on what the hell that means seems to need to continue, if it's an option. Because about 5 posters are convinced they grok it.

I just want to clarify the previous ballot.

Nilly has offered to tally, so that's good. I will not be able to put up a voting form -- my only urge to wait would be if Jon can do one today.

If not, it can be done via e-mail -- I'll just point vote(s)@buffistas.org to Nilly.

Really, a group of officers should be elected to a set time period.

There are not words to express how much I dislike this solution.

Here is my stand. It's one person's stand.

We are overthinking. This is not a government. This is not a science fiction convention. This is a party. A large, diffuse cocktail party. It has a bulletin board, it has a small budget, it has people who arrange for ordering drinks and paying the hotel.

But we don't need management apparatus suitable to a corporation. We do just fine without it.