I mentioned earlier that I voted in the city election today. From the local newspaper...

Fewer than 20 percent of the registered voters are expected to participate in many of the 16 municipal elections that include West Palm Beach, election officials said.

When I left the polling place the poll worker said, "You are one of the few who has the right to bitch tomorrow." Then when I got home I started reading this conversation.

What I think we should do is that we should post in press when we enter formal discussion. Then again when it is time to vote.

I don't know if we are in formal discussion mode yet.

the usual gang of fourteen

I'm a bit offended by that -- I'm assuming that I'm in the Gang?

How many of the Gang are Popular Kids? Oh, no, there are no Popular Kids. One of the Core Buffistas told me that, so it must be true.

But seriously, there's consensus where we decide stuff and there's consensus about Good Decision Methods.

When we were coding this site, people with a particular interest in HTML (seven years in the industry, myself) and programming and whatever had a long, geeky, incomprehensible-to-most-people discussion about the best way to do it.

People at that point did not use Cranial Trauma Imagery to express their disgust at the complexity of it all and the fine-tuning and the "aha, but what about such-and-such" levels of refinement.

They trusted that people knew how to make code that would make this site work well, and did not complain about the complexity or abstruseness of their discussions.

In the discussions here of the technicalities of voting, exactly the same level of geeky enthusiasm, care, and attention to detail is taking place,and for exactly the same reasons -- taking pride in one's work and wanting to provide fellow buffistas with a really great system -- and people hate it. They post that they feel sick, that they are shaking with horror, that they are weeping with frustration.

They post, sometimes repeatedly, that we are going into this issue in too much detail.

I am probably admitting to being autistic or something, but I don't get that at all.

I know it's not truly that they distrust the evil Gang of 14, or think the GO14 are trying to trick fellow buffistas into accepting a flawed, corrupt system which will allow them to take over the board -- so why is it?

I know it's not truly that they distrust the evil Gang of 14, or think the GO14 are trying to trick fellow buffistas into accepting a flawed, corrupt system which will allow them to take over the board -- so why is it?

You really don't want me (admittedly, number 15 *grin*) to answer that.

I don't think you can compare voting and policy debates, which are not as essential on many, many levels as the core code base, to coding the board. I don't think anyone out there was anti-code base, so you're not going to get people thinking "damn, stupid PHP 133+ MoFos!". However, there are people who find that drilling down to specifics in terms of the actual way things are run IN THIS FASHION? Is both annoying and runs counter to what they believe in.

Because of that, they don't take part in the discussion, or when they try, they get frustrated by "But don't you see the BEAUTY of System XYZ?? It's FABULOUS!", and go worry about more important things, like bills or finding the right change for the vending machine.

Because this essentially boils down to political differences and hits hot-button issues.

Because I personally feel that, while the intentions may be good, I've seen the paving stones on the primrose path.

PMM, you're No. 13. Look at your user number.

But seriously?

Right about now, I'm thinking that if you don't come into Kafka, you don't expect to have your silent wishes taken into account.

That's what I've done. I'm still subbed to this thread but I skip like a dancing monkey, and everything I read goes in one ear and out the other. I am fucking burned out. I have been fucking burned out for weeks. I'm not even trying to formulate my vauge thoughts and articulate a position in this thread.

But I also feel that's just too. fucking. bad for me. I can't take the heat; so I can't be a part of the community decisions right now. So I have to live with whatever is decided. Hell-- I'll probably be unhappy with what happens. Tough shit for me.

PMM, you're No. 13. Look at your user number.

I am, or was, the 15th most frequent poster in this thread when Ed ran the numbers and realized that 14 people did about 2/3s of the posting in here. That's the Gang of Fourteen.

But I also feel that's just too. fucking. bad for me. I can't take the heat; so I can't be a part of the community decisions right now. So I have to live with whatever is decided. Hell-- I'll probably be unhappy with what happens. Tough shit for me.

And it's the last two lines that make me weep with frustration. Seriously. Because I've heard it often. I'm just too stubborn to leave.

this essentially boils down to political differences and hits hot-button issues

OK, please explain to me, because I obviously am Autistic, or at least Asperger's-y, and definitely an INTP, why the discussions of the technical aspects of voting are "political"? And what are the "hot-button" issues?

I may seem like I'm being sarcastic, but I really really am not. As I have had to say so much in my lifetime, I really don't get this thing that you, a group of other human beings who I like and respect, get.

All I see is people saying "I don't like the fact that we've been discussing this for a long time and in a lot of detail..." leaving aside simple math issues.

I'd like you, or Hec, to put forward a fictional account of how this went in the best of all Buffista worlds -- assume that voting is a given.

Then what happened?

Here's an example:

Jon B and billytea posted for a while about prefs voting, but the majority of people said "oh that sounds to complicated, and we should go for something that's Good Enough".

So we then decided, by consensus, (which in my fable means "a profession of 150 Buffistas all posting one by one in Bureau that they agreed with the voting system and couldn't see any flaws or problems down the track") that we'd have ... what?

Would it be something like:

Votes on issues that three or more Buffistas thought were worth voting on. Only ever two issues or yes/no in the vote. Biggest number of votes wins, ten Buffista turnout enough. Stuff shelved if no clear win.

?

everything I read goes in one ear and out the other. I am fucking burned out. I have been fucking burned out for weeks.

Can you talk in a little more detail about that, please, Rebecca?

Why does the talk go in one ear and out the other?

What particularly about the talk makes you feel "burned out" -- simple volumes? Length of posts? Reading a post that seems to move toward a conclusion only to have someone think of Yet Another Wrinkle? Something else?

I have to live with whatever is decided.

You do not have to live with what is decided about the future of this board. That's the whole point.

You may, if you choose to abstain from the process, have to live with a process for deciding that you didn't have much input into.

But it will the the same as a system running one or more of the richer and more successful and free countries in the world -- it won't be based on star signs or chicken bones or frog races...

Oh, and I've got the stats with actual word counts. I'll post them later. Then we'll see who's in the damn Gang...

I'd like you, or Hec, to put forward a fictional account of how this went in the best of all Buffista worlds -- assume that voting is a given.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that this is basically going to make me thunk my head on the keyboard to try and explain. Voting is a given, because we voted for it.

It is not the best of all possible worlds.

What I saw being discussed, and how it was being discussed, made it feel to me like those who like to drill down into the complicated and irritating aspects of voting were assuming a mandate. I voted for voting because, while I figured it wouldn't make a whit of dif in terms of satisfaction levels, it might make people at least shut up about them. I regret that vote. I really do.

Voting is a political action. Deciding on how voting will occur is also a political action. People have strong opinions. Some of them are louder and mathier than others.

I'm being serious here, not facetious:

I can't really get a handle on what we can do to solve this. I'm a solver and I can't help it. I think there is a happy medium between order and choas. I just don't see how to get there because we keep hitting an impasse that we can't get past. I think that perhaps the only way for some of us to be happy is if we don't vote or discuss at all. But we voted to vote. We could un do that, I suppose, but it seems like we just have a few issues to clear

I really, really feel that once we get past this one vote we won't have to vote, discuss, talk, argue about anything for a really long time. And when we do, it should be easy and fairly painless, because we've hashed it out now.

My feelings are hurt everytime people the 14 people are mentioned, because I feel like that means I should just not participate (which I tried to do, actually and I think I am participating less and repostng the question less becuase I don't want my count to go up). I do try to think carefully about what I am saying before I post, and that is all I can do, but in my weaker moments I feel like I am being mischaracterized as a shrill, vote-mongering pushy non-Buffista when I am really just trying to facilitate what people are trying to say And I feel weird in Bitches when I feel like people are bitching about me specifically, and I am right there!. Anyway, i think that is my own wanting people to like me issue.

Anyway, unless we want to stop the discussion altogether and just never deal with it again, can we talk about the actual proposal and trying to get past the impasse about preferential voting.

Suggestion (which was really Plei's):

We have people rank order, but ask them if they want the rank order to be counted or if they would like runoff?

Also, that when we open the 3 day discussion period, we announce in Press.