A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
I feel as though we are at an unbreakable impasse here, and the same one we were at a few weeks ago, which is namely how to decide these 2 questions that seem to require more then 2 choices.
----------------
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?)
Although there may be a Go14, the voting process yielded 100 votes. Often when I visit here someone has already made the points I see so I don't bother to post. I am not alone in that practice.
Yeah, which means that if you aren't one of the posters, you're not counted in consensus, and there was on the table the idea that there is now consensus for a
specific
type of voting.
edit:
This one time, that is.
I get the impression that the Go14 thing is part of the reason people get frustrated and leave the thread.
I don't mean this as a personal attack on anyone because lord knows I'm probably just as guilty of scaring people away as anyone, but I think the reason people get frustrated is that we're so bogged down in the minutia of the process, that we haven't been able to decide anything.
I have made a proposal on how to decide this next round of votes. I saw a lot of posts from people agreeing with my proposal, and very few from folks against it (I admit my perception may be colored). And I've seen no counter-proposal from those who are against it. Even some folks who are hesitant about using a preferential ballot have agreed to try it this one time. Can we just get this moving?
Could you relink to your proposal?
Could you relink to your proposal?
Just that we decide these two questions (that Sophia just restated) via preferential ballots.
I cannot sit through another preferential voting debate. Ever.
Are there any viable options on how to vote on 3 and 4?
My original idea was to try and come to a consensus of 2 numbers and vote on that, but I don't think we can do that.
Other ideas?
we have
1 preferentail.
2. runoff
One of the Davids said Keep it Simple and we've gone way past that.
Yeah, I did. I like Laura's summation back a few posts.
Let's give the practical application approach a try. Let us do the preferential ballot on this go around and see if people are comfortable using it and understand how it tallies. Let us not get ahead of ourselves again.
Tight focus. Next step. Keep it simple. When we get the results we'll have a lot more to work with.
Just that we decide these two questions (that Sophia just restated) via preferential ballots.
But it seems that the only other option would be a run-off, so I don't see where there's a need for a secondary proposal other than "preferential or run-off to decide on min. number of voters, etc."
What's the problem with questions 3 and 4?
We run up a set of sequential numbers for each one and see how that comes out with preferential voting, no?
But it seems that the only other option would be a run-off
Oh thank god! Because I felt like people were saying there were other options and I just wasn't seeing them. I still think that to do a runoff we would have to separate the 2 questions in #4.
I don't understand the rest of your sentance, though. I am sorry.
