Wow. I can't think of a better reason to NOT count abstentions as part of the MVT. This seems to go way beyond simple to me, if simple is our goal. I was unsure which way to vote on counting abstentions, now the choice seems clear to me. If you don't vote, your lack of vote doesn't count.
Burrell, if you'll go back, you'll see I suggested that when I didn't know Jon could construct a ballot where we could skip some items and vote on others. It's a non-issue now. Also - see Sophia's posts on clarifying why the "count me towards the MVT" vote isn't necessary.
This is a discussion. It's brainstorming. People are going to come up with suggestions and still not be married to them.
I can't see caring enough to see that something has an effect, but not caring enough to vote one way or another.
But I can. Unlike you, I can't see needing an MVT. Which is why we agree to vote differently.
Me too. If someone wanted to have a krav thread, I'd never visit it, not necessarily want to vote in favor of it, given the general atmosphere of anti-thread-proliferation, but not be against it, either. I'd want the votes of those who do care to count.
People are going to come up with suggestions and still not be married to them.
Hey, I'm not fully decided either, but I resent being told I should vote one way, even if I disagree, because those who feel that way shouldn't be "left out."
Honestly, I think that the abstentions rule will pass. Why? Because so far, EVERY change has been voted in, even when two changes seem to contradict each other.
I think it is funny that the only 2 things, other then getting this straightened out, that I have a big opinion about is that we should be voting and that votes other than yes and no shouldn't count.
OK-- I think I might try a position piece.
Sophia's position piece:
Hopefully I have covered all the arguments for my positions. It would be nice if someone could make the arguments for the other side, so we can have something to point people to if they want a quick summary.
Also, I would be happy to add any points to this that anyone wants.
ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD
Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?
Yes: I believe that this will put the discussion in a place where it is easy to put a cap on it-- to make it end. It will also prevent people from avoiding Bureacracy and prevent day to day Bureaucratic requests from being lost. It is also a good mindset to help keep voting as something that is out of the ordinary-- not for day to day things like whether or not to have quotes in the upper corner or a B in our address bar.
ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION
Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?
Yes: I think the discussion period is long enough, if announced ahead of time, that we can both get any ambiguities in the ballot and deal with any questions. Since I think there should be a separate discussion thread, I see it would be easy to close that thread when voting starts. If someone has a question on the wording, I think they could ask in Bureaucracy.
ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT
How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count?
Sorry Jesse-- I am edging toward a number more like 30. If thirty people can't be arsed to choose yes or no on something, is it worth changing? I am afraid that 50 might be too high at some point.
Do votes of "no preference" count toward this?
No. I think that again, if 30 or so people can't be arsed to choose between yes or no, what is the point in changing. I know others don't feel this way, but...how can your vote "count" when it is not a vote? A vote of no preference is just a vote toward the majority, whichever it may be. The only point I see to it is to up the MVP, but then the MVP should just be a lower number.
ITEM 4: SECONDS
a) Should more than one Buffista be needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote?
Yes: I think that one other buffista (see my vote below) should second, just to avoid the example where we have a discussion and voting period about changing to Swahili on the board.
b) Please choose 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: [ ]
One. I think people should not have to go out and drum up much support to get heard. Buffistas should have a voice. I think one is a perfect number to make sure we don't have to discuss anything truly silly proposed by a troll, but yet not silence anyone.
edited to remove my real name
Sophia's position piece:
I agree with Sophia, except I want more than one person to second. Because I'd rather there was a brake on opening up voting and the discussion thread. So I'd set it a little higher, like five or six.
(David-- I slipped and used my real name. Can you change your post too?).
Sophia, I just wanted to tell you that I saw your original (and I promise to do a brain wipe) but I think your name is lovely.
Thanks Heather! You can remember it if you want, but it is easily identifiable by work people is all, since I am pretty open about where I live and work, i feel like I should at least try to hide the name!
