Seriously, what about deciding that as it occurs, so we're not locked into it?

I'm fine with this.

Per John H.'s suggestion, here is the original proposed ballot that a few of us came up with yesterday. Note that the link the the preferential voting explanation isn't live.

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 3a: VOTER TURNOUT

How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count?

You are choosing the minimum number of community members voting on any item in order for the vote to count. If fewer than this minimum number vote on a particular item, then that item will have failed to pass regardless of the percentage of votes in favor.

This question is being decided via a preferential ballot, which is kind of an automated run-off system used in Australia and elsewhere. A detailed explanation of how this works is here. You don't need to rank all the choices, but if you don't, and one of your choices isn't a top vote-getter, it's as though there were a run-off and you didn't vote.

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?

If a proposal does not receive this minimum number of "seconds", then the proposal will be considered to have failed, without going through the formal discussion and voting process.

This question is being decided via a preferential ballot, which is kind of an automated run-off system used in Australia and elsewhere. A detailed explanation of how this works is here. You don't need to rank all the choices, but if you don't, and one of your choices isn't a top vote-getter, it's as though there were a run-off and you didn't vote.

Oy.

Jon, are we still on for the clarification vote at midnight eastern? Voting period open ... 3 days?

I will post the announcement in Press at that time.

But this is EXACTLY why I think we need an easy way for people to contribute, and to me that way is voting If only 14 people really care about discussing all this shit in all of this great detail, it's important to me that everyone else has an opportunity to have some impact without having to quit their jobs to read this thread. I don't want community decisions made by 14 people, even if I am one of those 14 because I am unable to keep my big mouth shut.

I have to agree with Jesse on this one. I am almost positive that I was one of the 14 people. I wanted voting so people were heard. Beleive it or not, I hate discussing this. I really tried to make every single one of my posts something that would facilitate the discussion and keep it from being picky. I have been upset all last night and today about this because I have PMS, and becuase I don't want something that I really thought would simplify things to make me cry.

So, why not vote then on whether we prefer:

a) Majority (as in 51%) wins?

b) Majority (as in "the choice with the most votes")

c) Preferential (linked to the dozens of posts explaining the mechanism

do people prefer?

If we continue doing things by consensus, and we respect each others' feelings to the point where certain points get a veto as soon as someone says "this is making me feel uncomfortable" then the most important things are going to get ignored.

I agree with this. The instant veto-ing of topics is something I (speaking as an often oversensitive person) don't particularly like.

But, really, saying "There are important things that we could settle with voting, but I can't say any of them out loud" is just another way of saying "Yes, the voting will only be used for frivolous issues," isn't it?

If the only things worth voting on are the things people don't feel they can even bring forward for discussion, then why have we spent the past week talking about voting?

And we can add an item five about how we decide votes with more than two choices in the future (i.e. plurality or preferential voting).

Choice B is "plurality", and we've got a definition in place.

Somebody who likes preferential should put together as short and unambiguous a definition as can be arranged.

I apologized for the "cool kids'" comment. But the "roll dice" was a genuine comment on the principles being offered as predominant principles. It was not a personal attack on anyone. But it was a legitamate critique of a principle being offered.

I do apologize if it offended anyone. I 'm going to stay out of the discussion. I will just point out that the tone of some the "keep it simple crowd" has been exactly peace-making.

I don't think I'm making a positive contribution right now. I'm going to stay off this thread until tomorrow. And I think when I catch up it will be by skipping. So if anyone feels the need for a further apology you will have to write me personally.

Jon, are we still on for the clarification vote at midnight eastern? Voting period open ... 3 days?

Errr... yeah, let's get that out of the way first.

I might try and sum up some stuff. In fact I think we could do with a reposting of these points every fifty or a hundred posts, just so late arrivals can get a handle on it.

There are two outstanding issues from the first vote.

• One of them we knew about in advance: what's minimum voter turnout? (MVT) We've had various suggestions, none over a hundred, none under ten.
• simple majority was voted for, but later, we found out that some people had different definitions of "simple majority" to others. They were inadvertently voting for "50%+1" when they thought they were voting for "biggest number of votes".

There's a whole bunch of other stuff, but it's about procedures, for instance, 'how do you vote for "a number between ten and a hundred" without tons of runoffs?'.