Okay, here's my counter-position piece. In the interest of fairness, I took all the views opposite Sophia's, trying to present what I've heard argued. I've noted where it is not representative of my personal views. Hope this helps.

----- Liese's Counter-Sophia Position Piece

ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD

Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?

No. I believe that discussion should remain in the Bureaucracy thread. These are bureaucratic issues so I feel this is the correct place for them. Alternately, we will have two streams of conversation regarding each issue, first in Bureaucracy to propose a vote and then in the Voting thread to resolve it. I feel that we should not need a technological mechanism to close and open discussion, but the community should respect a simple post in Bureaucracy. Adding another thread adds fussiness to the process I feel is unnecessary. So far, we have been able to handle day-to-day Bureaucracy simultaneously in the thread.

ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION

Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?

No. There are users who do not participate in the details of hashing out the ballot, but will have questions about the issues when they go to actually vote. This is a time for clarification and exploration, and users should be able to get quick answers to their questions during this time. [not the author's actual view]

ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT

How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count?

I feel that this number should be deliberately high so as to prevent frivolous change. If we are aiming for a system that improves on consensus, we should strive to include as many people as possible in the decision-making process. If the community as a whole is indifferent to the issue, then perhaps it needs to rest. Later if community support for the issue has been garnered, we will be able to put it up for vote again (after a reasonable period of time has passed.) Personally, I feel that 65 is about right. To date, there is no poll that has come up, however silly, that about a hundred people haven't voted on. We have an active community. I doubt there will be many issues that make it to the polls that we are completely unwilling to vote on.

Do votes of "no preference" count toward this?

Yes. While it is possible to feel that an issue should be settled, and discussion should be closed, one may not have strong feelings either way. Voting 'no preference' allows you to register your interest in the issue, but that you would prefer to let those who passionately care about the issue settle it. It also gives a better gauge of interest in the vote, and makes the minimum voter turnout figure better reflect the community's position.

ITEM 4: SECONDS

a) Should more than one Buffista be needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote?

No. In order to have a democratic system, any member of the board needs to feel that they have a voice. If an issue is truly silly, it will be quickly voted down. [not the author's actual view]

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: [ ]

9. This number should be deliberately high in order to prevent board resources and Buffista patience from wearing out. If it only takes one or two people to push an issue to a vote, we may constantly be voting. I don't really think this will be a problem currently, but as we are setting up a system, we will need to abide by our rules, and we want to set up a method that is both fair and reasonable.

But why not just vote then? I can't see caring enough to see that something has an effect, but not caring enough to vote one way or another.

Why I voted "abstain" on one of the first round's questions: A choice about how long to allow discussion had to be made, given that we were going to limit that time. I really, really didn't care less what it was. (Well, if someone had said "fifty days!" I would have, but that wasn't so.) So I abstained, because I didn't have an opinion.

When it comes to a ballot with just one issue... let me think. Okay, let's say that for some reason an issue that has to do with Bitches comes up for a vote. (Not that I think this is likely, just doing a thought experiment.) I don't read Bitches. I couldn't care less about this issue. But if it matters to the Bitches that this issue is decided one way or another, I'd be happy to vote an abstention in order to help them get that decided.

Of course, I also vote in elections when there's only one option. I have strong feelings about the moral obligation to vote, even if the vote is "eh, I really don't care." I also prefer a scenario in which change is slowed by people actively saying "no, I don't want that" to one in which there has to be a majority groundswell for change before it happens, but that's a personal preference, not something I can use as an argument. (I'll vote for abstentions counting toward the MVT, personally, but again - not caring all that much.)

Does that make any sense, Burrell?

Thanks Liese. I've marked your post and mine, and hopefully when someone needs clarification, we can point them that way.

Also thanks Jon for the fix!

Thanks Leise. I've marked your post and mine, and hopefully when someone needs clarification, we can point them that way.

That makes me wonder -- at the end of each discussion period, should we post and link to an annotated ballot with the main pro and con arguments summed up as impartially as possible?

Something like,

Should we have a Gimli/Wes shippers' thread?

• The "Yes" argument: Actually, I can't think of one
• The "No" argument: Ewww. Just, ewww.

I kind of hate to even suggest it, because I'm not going to do it (see how bad I am at neutrality?) and I really hate to volunteer other people, but it might be useful....

at the end of each discussion period, should we post and link to an annotated ballot with the main pro and con arguments summed up as impartially as possible?

I think that's a great idea, but it shouldn't be mandated, mainly because I hate to volunteer other people as well.

I sort of planned on doing something like that-- are Liese and mine's to un-neutral to link to?

I can't promise to always do it, but I hope to this time.

are Liese and mine's to un-neutral to link to?

Oh, not at all! I thought they were a perfect example. I meant it to come off more like "See what they did? We should do that every time!" And then I was thinking in one post, just to simplify the linkyness....

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."

Burrell, nothing I posted in my previous post was in response to your discussion with Jon. I was merely responding to your post that quoted me that you started with "Wow".

---------

Liese S. "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 14, 2003 3:45:34 pm EST

Liese: I'm confused by your points under item 4. "a" says you think only one second is needed, but then in "b" you chose 9 as the number of seconds, which seems in conflict with what you just said in 4a. I just had chocolate, so my brain might be mush.

Cindy-- Liese was just taking the opposite view of me on a few things we agreed upon. I think if we edit into one post, we may have covered everything.

Cindy, it does conflict, deliberately. I was trying to counter all of Sophia's points so the issues were presented fairly. (Sophia chose yes, and 1, respectively, so that meant to present counterpoints I needed to chose no, and a high number.) I tried to note where my actual views diverged from the points given. Sorry for the confusion.

Although I had a perfectly good reason to contradict myself there, I do not promise to have perferctly good reasons if I contradict myself elsewhere. Heh.

Anyway to be completely fair, I should have included also a low number for the minimum voter turnout number. Sophia's was middle ground, and mine was fairly high.