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.

I have gathered the impression that 'the median' in English parlance is 'the central reservation.'

I really like the idea that a high number of seconds must be garnered to move a resolution into voting.

Oh, and if nobody else volunteers, I can tally again (with the same schedule problem of being away from a computer on most of Friday-Saturday).

With this, or any vote in the future I can take a turn at tally duty. Not a problem.

I know I have asked this 55 times, but if one other person agrees with me, I will do it.

Since we agreed on this:

A yes vote on this item signifies the voter agrees that seven days time is sufficient to discuss the issue. The week would be broken down thusly: Discussion: Days 1, 2, 3, and 4. Voting: Days 5, 6, 7. When there is a conflict for major holidays (to be defined) we will make accommodations (to be defined) as needed. We will vote later on whether discussions end on day 4 or continue during the votes.

Should we try to stick to it and announce in PRESS when the discussion begins?

I'm not sure why participants here have been dismissed as a "Gang of 14." Everyone has the opportunity to participate.

Fred, sure, everyone can participate, but then, everyone can get root canals if they want to. The implication behind using such phrases as "gang of 14" (which I find pretty impolitic and unkind, although shorn of its context strangely jazzy) is that there are fourteen people participating in a gigantic bureaucracy-wank, who are driving out everyone else who might otherwise participate.

As I said, an impolitic term. But the truth remains, there are a very few participants to this thread, relative to the voter turnout we've been able to muster. The detail and contentiousness on this thread have made people complain, here and on other threads, that they can't read Bureaucracy any more, for mental health and/or blood pressure reasons.

Operationally, the effect is similar to when mieskie was trolling the Firefly thread -- people stay away in droves. When that happens in Bureaucracy, an important thread for all of us, I think that's a bad thing!

So, proposal.

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

Does that solve the problem?

Should we try to stick to it and announce in PRESS when the discussion begins?

I say yes. Anyway, a Press announcement would be useful now, if we're looking to move on towards voting soon. (Please!)

Sophia, I've been thinking about this, and feel like a retroactive announcement is fine. I mean, people can see when there are a bunch of posts in here, right? So we could today post in Press that this discussion started yesterday, or whatever, and that voting would start on Saturday. But when did this current discussion start? I mean, it's pretty much the same proposal that's come up several times already.