You're right assuming we're averaging the numbers in B, but if we're just collecting the numbers and figuring out which number got the most votes, than all the no votes in a) could instead vote 0 in b) and you wouldn't need an a) question.

But we're not just doing that. If seconds gets voted down in question a, it doesn't matter what average question b comes up with. Whether or not we do anything with the average is a separate issue than what the average is.

I don't think we can round to the nearest 5 if the choices are only 1-10. That really only gives us the choices of 1 (?), 5 and 10. I'm thinking just the average would be better, here.

I don't think we can round to the nearest 5 if the choices are only 1-10. That really only gives us the choices of 1 (?), 5 and 10. I'm thinking just the average would be better, here.

Exactly.

OK-- I think that is my fault. We talked about the averaging by rounding to 5 for MVP (or whatever) and I just added it to the lower one without thinking.

I agree with Cindy's point (also Ple's earlier point about statistical analysis) that it would be better to find a number which seemed useful or relevant or based in some percentage of the population (however we figured that) rather than arbitrary to set standards like MVT or Seconds.

Let's not forget the obvious fact, that if we pick a set number based upon who turned up in the two most recent votes, we're presuming that the population will remain stable here and that the number of active posters will remain stable.

That has not been the case historically. We have grown and grown.

If we set the MVT number at 50, and then we double in size with active posters that means that instead of rougly half the people being needed to make a change, only a quarter of them would. Very different dynamic.

If we could find a number derived out of active posters or active posters plus active lurkers (we could ask for a show of hands among lurkers? Or, as Am-Chau suggested, look at how many people log in daily or weekly if that's possible?) then we would know the principle by which we had gotten the number, and could adjust easily with fluctuations in active population.

Sorry if I'm introducing this notion too late into the discussion, but I do think it would be wiser to presume that the number of posters won't remain static.

If we could find a number derived out of active posters or active posters plus active lurkers (we could ask for a show of hands among lurkers? Or, as Am-Chau suggested, look at how many people log in daily or weekly if that's possible?) then we would know the principle by which we had gotten the number, and could adjust easily with fluctuations in active population.

What happened to "keep it simple"? ;)

Seriously, as several folks have pointed out, we can alway revisit if it looks like proposals are moving through at too fast or too slow a pace. I think that for now, a range of 2 to 100 is fine.

What happened to "keep it simple"? ;)

I'm also willing to use the recent voter turnout as a handy benchmark and work from that. Because, if the active population does change radically, then we could reconsider the MVT.

Mostly, I want to move forward on this vote. I want to quit talking about voting, and I want to get the results from the vote and start using them.

Again, my biggest impulse is to try things out and see what works. I am less interested now in my own opinion, and much more interested in what the vote will tell us about the community's opinion. That's what I want. Not my way, but the way that works for the most people.

On item 2: Should we add to the 'no' answer something regarding the fact that after the vote, discussion will be suspended for the next six months, regardless of the result? Because right now it reads simply and clearly, but perhaps like we'll just go right on talking about the issue and never desist.

On item 3: How will rounding be handled? If the mean ends up 22, will we round down to 20, but if it is 23 will we round up to 25?

On item 3: How will rounding be handled? If the mean ends up 22, will we round down to 20, but if it is 23 will we round up to 25?

In the revised item, there's a note that the MVT will rounded to the nearest 5 ( i.e. 10, 15, 20, etc.).

The 32% that voted against MVT on the first ballot would vote for the lowest possible number, if their minds haven't changed. I think this would skew the outcome lower than 50,

I don't see why this isn't clearer to most people. I will be VERY SURPRISED if the number is as high as 50, since I think that 50 is one of the highest numbers someone may input, and there will be a huge number of 2s to offset the few who want a high number.

I personally would rather see the range be reasonable on both sides rather than unreasonable, so I'd prefer a range from 10 to 65 (or whatever it was bicyclops originally posted) than 2 to 100. But honestly, I don't think it will change the final outcome much. I predict that the final number will be somewhere between 15 and 40.