X-treme Natter! We're trying this at home!

Sweet!

If half of the voters go for 10ish and half go for 100ish, yes it will end up middleish, but this is a risk I am willing to take.

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..."

FWIW, I wouldn't have believed it till I saw it that people can get into screaming arguments about voting methods. But I did see it, and witnessing a screaming argument can be so upsetting to many Buffistas that I think they (certainly I, for a while) just back away slowly and want nothing to do with it. The fact that last night's posts still managed to get rude and snippy means that, yeah, it's still Must Avoid Territory for a lot of people.

What burns me out? Length and repetitiveness of posts, intricacy of detail and example, people talking past one another and being unable to agree on what words (i.e. "quorum") mean long enough to use those words for a purpose. And really, the sense that I, as a Buffista Good Citizen, have to read 500 posts about a topic I find abstruse and boring! (I say "have to" because citizenship means being concerned about maintaining the community.) Obviously, some people love this stuff, but just as obviously, it's confusing and feels like criminal over-thinking to other people.

Have we got a formal proposal (I mean one that hasn't been tinkered with since it was posted)? Let's get something on the table and vote on it, in a desperate attempt to get this over with. Let's stop being academic and "what-if", and do it already.

Let's get something on the table and vote on it, in a desperate attempt to get this over with. Let's stop being academic and "what-if", and do it already.

pumps fist!

Just Do It

Post #7181 wording works for me.

Link

John H "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 11, 2003 11:03:24 pm EST

Good, yes, I like that too, and many thanks to Sophia and John H for trying to soldier through the statistical fray, purpose intact.

Laura nominates, I second; are we for it? Can we write this proposal on stone tablets and set voting for, um, soon?

Good, yes, I like that too, and many thanks to Sophia and John H for trying to soldier through the statistical fray, purpose intact.

What Nutty said. [Edit: I mean, seconded-ed, if that's needed]

Good, yes, I like that too, and many thanks to Sophia and John H for trying to soldier through the statistical fray, purpose intact.

Yes. Ditto.

if so, is there a minimum number of people who have to agree before a proposal moves to formal discussion? Put a number between 1 and 10 into this box, please: [ ]

One nitpick - We need to be clear that this number excludes the person who makes the proposal. i.e. a "1" means one person proposes and one other person seconds.

Couple of thoughts after reading the overnights --

I'm not sure why participants here have been dismissed as a "Gang of 14." Everyone has the opportunity to participate. Bureaucracy is a sidebar thread -- we all have access to it, whether we actively subscribe or not. It doesn't seem fair to criticize the process just because a relatively small number choose to participate (or, flipping it around, because most people choose not to participate).

If most people don't know what's going on here, followers of this thread should get the word out that here is where board governance matters are discussed and narrowed down for the ballot. (I'd be happy to post something in Press, or draft something for the FAQs, if people want.)

I like the idea of "pick a number" for quorum, if only to avoid the "preferential vs. runoff" question for now. Thought for the future -- include an "present" option in future votes. "Present" would mean, "I'd like to see a decision, but it doesn't matter which. So count me toward a quorum."

"Median" means "strip of grass in the middle of the road" so you just pick the most boring number.

No, a strip of grass in the middle of the road is a "neutral ground." t /New Orleaniana :)

Yes Jon, I was about to say that.