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.

My understanding is that the purpose of seconds is to limit the number of things that are voted on by ensuring that one person can't force votes and discussion on a whole bunch of things that no one else cares about.

My take on the second thing is to prevent some random person who has been on the site for 2 seconds proposing us to discuss and vote on changing the board to Czecheslovakian. And since they proposed a vote and such, we will just have to waste time AND remember to vote against it.

I think what Laura, Katie and Sophie are saying are what most of us are thinking. Now if we require a large number of seconds, say 15, then instead of limiting discussion, we increase discussion in Bureaucracy to garner the requisite 15 seconds necessary for the first "official" discussion. This is counter-productive IMO. What we need to do is prevent Joe newbie from proposing the czech turnover, and I think requiring just a few seconds on that will prevent the discussion. And if Joe can get 2 or 3 people to second his foolish idea, the discussion will be minimal and the vote probably won't even approach MVT even at a low MVT number, and certainly won't win.

Quite frankly, I don't think we want to make each proposal a lobbying effort at the "seconds" stage of the game.