We do?

Why do we always have comments when I'm Away From Home?

Mieske's suspension ended on March 1st. Has anyone re-activated him?

Not saying a word. Is "snerk" a word?

-----------

About MVT - If we're having an MVT (which we are, because it was voted in) it's meaningless to define it as less than 3, because we have the majority requirement of 50%+1 vote. If we defined MVT as "1", by requiring a simple majority, we'd need 1.5, or rounded up to 2. If we define MVT as "2" and one person votes yes, and one person votes no, we still don't have a simple majority. Whatever we suggest, if we put in a bottom number, please make it "3".

I don't even want an MVT, but since we have one, I'm just sayin'...

As to picking the mean - I don't like it, because it's going to end up around 50. No. Really. There are enough of us that want high, and enough of us that want low.

Why don't we let people pick one from:

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100

At least then, we'll only have 20 different choices, not 100. I'm for a MVT of zero. I can happily live at 5. amych is for an MVT of 97, unless she (like Jesse the 50 PIMP) is obsessed with the number 97, I bet she'd be happy with 95 or 100.

I really think you need both upper and lower limits to prevent skewing by posting ridiculously extreme numbers. More of an issue with high than low, but still.

I agree. I'd prefer the more moderate range of 10 to 65 over 2 to 100, but as I said before, I don't think it'll change the final results in any substantial way.

I wanted to say, part of my thinking is that I can't imagine any issue coming to a vote in which board interest is so low that it will pass or fail only because many folks "voted" to abstain so that MVT would be met. I think we will have a moderate to low MVT, and that it will be easily met every time by actual votes. Maybe I'm a freak for assuming that the process will actually be simple if we just let it be.

Why don't we let people pick one from:

Cause then we'd have to have a runoff, and we haven't decided how to do that yet.

Cause then we'd have to have a runoff, and we haven't decided how to do that yet.

No, you can still average the results.

Stompies have a comment on this. But what have to figure out what it is first. Hold on.

I'm kind of upset that there is admin-discussion before there is all-Buffista discussion on this issue. I'm kind of upset that the admins, who aren't supposed to be any different from the rest of the Buffistas, are getting to kind of decide what actions they will take on something, without any other Buffistas necessarily knowing about it.

I also kind of know I wasn't supposed to talk about this. But I'm posting anyway, because I feel actually very strongly-- however awkwardly-- about this.

Rebecca, a situation arose in which the involved parties felt a respectful backchannel approach was the best first step. The situation evolved quickly from there.

We've been debating how to talk to others about it since then, then being a couple days ago.

Cause then we'd have to have a runoff, and we haven't decided how to do that yet.

No, you can still average the results.

And median and mode will be more telling spread out over 20 choices, than over 100.

Rebecca, a situation arose in which the involved parties felt a respectful backchannel approach was the best first step.

I know. I see how it happened (I'm fairly sure), and I can understand how it's happened that it happened this way (...!). But I still feel unhappy with it.

(I won't talk here about the specifics of my understanding of the admin/Buffista relationship and admin responsibilities vs. plainly-Buffista responsibilities, because it kind of gets into the specifics of this situation, and I'm... being cryptic too.)

I'm also having a kind of emotional response to this situation. I'm aware of that.