Cause if abstentions count toward MVT, then MVT is applied to the whole ballot, not question by question. Or did I misinterpret you?

conceivably, someone could show up and abstain all the time. I don't understand it, really, but I think maybe someone who was against voting entirely might want to do it, or if abstentions count toward MVT, someone might do it just to get people to stop talking.

It seems fair to me that abstentions should count toward "I can see that this is something that should be decided one way or the other but I personally don't care."

I can't see a situation in which the abstentions-counting-for-MVT thing has a negative outcome.

Thinking about it logically, it means that votes are more likely to pass where there are smaller numbers of people who really care a lot.

Would a vote with a hundred votes, 6 for, 4 against, and 90 abstains, be a bad thing? It would still have a majority in the proposed situation.

Sorry, I grasp Dana's question now.

I had not anticipated multiple question ballots after we get the proceedings set up. But it's conceivable, and then I'd say the only fair way is on a question by question basis.

A few quick points.

I will post an explaination of binary walk in natter , then link to it here. Since it is not under consideration, I won't be in a hurry.

On abstentions: abstentions should count towards a mvt, because "no" counts towards minimum voter turnout. Otherwise it could happen that if I vote "no" on an issue it passes, but if I vote "present" it fails.

I favor a high number of seconds and a low minimum voter turnout. That is why I suggest 15. I honestly think you will be able to get 15 seconds for anything worth voting on. But also think around 25 is a high enough voter turnout to pass something. I mean if fifteen people want to discuss something, and another ten show up, and there is proper notification and all - I think non-voting is genuine indifference to the outcome, and people who don't vote will be okay with however it shows up. I think we may want to make a point of cross posting notification rather than just putting them in press when the actual voting begins, and maybe even when formal discussion begins.

I favor a high number of seconds and a low minimum voter turnout. That is why I suggest 15. I honestly think you will be able to get 15 seconds for anything worth voting on.

Not to be a naysayer, but nay. A second is not just someone who thinks something should be voted on, but is (depending on the question) someone who thinks something should be changed. So in a way, by not seconding you can be sure your inevitable "no" vote never needs to happen. And getting 15 seconds on a board with the infamous GO14 (in other words, where there's barely 15 people doing most of the talking), would IMO prove damn near impossible for most issues down the road.

A second is not just someone who thinks something should be voted on, but is (depending on the question) someone who thinks something should be changed.

I don't see it that way at all. If I second something, I'm saying, "I think this is worth discussing further," not, "I intend to vote 'yes'."

getting 15 seconds on a board with the infamous GO14 (in other words, where there's barely 15 people doing most of the talking)

Ooh, please don't let's start this up again, even in jest.

X-percentage of posts in the entire bureaucracy thread came from fourteen people.

And another percentage came from fifteen people, and another from sixteen people.

It doesn't mean anything.

There are about 800 registered, and 135 people voted.

Those are interesting numbers.

Okay, can someone explain the purpose of seconds for me? Is it to limit ballots or discussion or neither?

The notion that we might not want to jump into formal discussion for 4 days and voting for 3 days on a matter only one person is interested in discussing.