'Heart Of Gold'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
As someone pointed out above, we've placed our Stompies in a difficult position. I'd like to see people try and remember that and give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd like for everyone to be given the benefit of the doubt, of course, but especially the Stompies, and especially when we deal with particularly difficult issues.
Concur, and thank you for pointing that at Dana.
Jon-- I can post what posts at midnight.
That is I can post the voting thing.
Also
{{{{Stompies}}}}}
Ya'll did the right thing, and we love you!
I tested the latest ballot to see if the response was directed to my email for counting. It is working. Good night all.
Much love for the Stompies!
Pro and Con positions on all items, courtesy Leise, David, Type Boy and Sophia
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.
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?
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.
No:-- The reason I think discussion needs to continue once voting start, is that a lot of people may not think about the issue until voting starts. It may not be just a matter of questions. There could be actual arguments no-one has thought of. Please, we are closing discussion once the issue is voted on. Let's not confine discussion to four days before that.
ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT
How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count?
2-- I was against the voter turnout in the first place, but I think that if the general Buffista population doesn't show up to vote no, the vote should stand. We are a community that prides itself on participation and self-rule, and shouldn't need much of a minimum number to keep u sparticipating. Also, I feel this is the simplest option {view not actually that of the author}
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.65--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?
Item four continued here: Sophia Brooks "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 15, 2003 11:25:52 pm EST
The reason I think discussion needs to continue once voting start, is that a lot of people may not think about the issue until voting starts. It may not be just a matter of questions. There could be actual arguments no-one has thought of. Please, we are closing discussion for six months once the issue is voted on. Let's not confine discussion to four days before that.
t edited to close bold someone left open.
closed tag.
I agree Typo Boy.
And I think that "no preference" if actually expressed in a ballot should count. Because we have a minimum voter turnout. It just seems silly to me, that if the voter turnout is exactly at the minimum, and the proposal passes, that a no voter will have reason to reflect that if she had voted "no preference" instead of no, the proposal would have failed, that her "no" vote caused the proposal to pass.
I think not voting should count as not voting. But actually taking the trouble to cast a ballot, even if the choice is no preference, should count towards the minimum voter turnout.
typo, when I am finished editing 9the HTML is killing non-techie me) I ill add your comment re cosed discusion (although I am taking out the 6 month time period, becuase that actually asn't been decided).
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 other buffistas should second, just to avoid the example where we have a discussion and voting period about changing to Swahili on the board.We really have tag-left-open issues at the moment, I'm afraid.