I think the reason for the voting system was because people felt that the consensus thing wasn't working too well. We need to recognize that there are situations where consensus will work, and others where it is just causing a lot of fighiting and bad feelings. I'm going to propose a rule of thumb:

If consensus isn't working, let's turn to voting.

For a perfect example of the breakdown of consenus see the voting thread for the PV/runoff discussion. That's why I moved that we vote on the PV/runoff issue, to get a firm decision on it without all the rancor. Many people felt that we shouldn't vote on it until we tried it, but others feel that we shouldn't try it at all. So I ask again that somebody provide the final second and we queue this issue before people get too insane.

I'm not looking to create a backlog of issues for discussion. In fact, in a previous post I suggested putting the PV/runoff issue on the moratorium ballot with a minimum of discussion, even though that's technically not the way we do things. Can we get a consensus to bend the rules and get this issue out of the way?

I was reading the posts from last night in posting, and I see why the ballot never got posted. I also made a previous suggestion to post the ballot without PV and if one doesn't get a clear majority we'll fight it out after the fact. The ballot shouldn't be delayed. Let's post the ballot by 12:00 noon without the PV option, and (if we can get a consensus on this) let's put the PV/runoff option as a separate question on this ballot, or otherwise let's queue it for discussion as the next issue (pushing ahead of moratorium on old issues discussion).

Will post this in voting discussion too because it's extremely relevant.

Perhaps we don't discuss crafting the ballot-- perhaps the proposer crafts the ballot and if we don't like it, we say no.

I think that's excellent. I have proposed two alternates in Lightbulb and made an announcement in press. Should I move them and/or delete?

Perhaps we don't discuss crafting the ballot-- perhaps the proposer crafts the ballot and if we don't like it, we say no.

I thought that was what we were going to do all along; or at least that was how I understood the whole proposing process.

Frankly, I'm beyond irritated that we voted by some ridiculous margin to stick to the 4 day/3 day schedule, and then couldn't even stop bickering over the ballot. I haven't seen anyone arguing for why 4 is a better choice than three. Just about "I'M GOING TO POUND IT INTO YOUR HEADS LOUDLY AND REPEATEDLY THAT I WANT IT ON THE BALLOT." The arguments for one side or the other haven't even been addressed, and we've already thrown over holy mother process.

Fuck that noise. Proposer makes the ballot (my ballot would say: 6 moratorium? Y/N. But I'm not the proposer.) and if you don't like it, vote no. Better yet, don't vote, so it won't get a quorum or whatever abbreviation it was we spent weeks bitching at each other over.

We're losing people over this shit. Not just from bureaucracy, from the community as a whole. And we're losing a lot more people from the process discussion. People who I'd like to see have a voice in what we do, but who are too exhausted or disgusted or angry to be in here at all.

Fuck that noise. Proposer makes the ballot (my ballot would say: 6 moratorium? Y/N. But I'm not the proposer.) and if you don't like it, vote no. Better yet, don't vote, so it won't get a quorum or whatever abbreviation it was we spent weeks bitching at each other over.

That's what I just propsed and announced in press. I agree. Want to check it out?

Yeah, we x-posted, Cindy. Yours was a hell of a lot calmer than mine....

So maybe we need to deal with our consensus process and figure out someway to figure out how a consensus is reached.

A consensus should be clear and obvious. If it's not clear or obvious then it doesn't represent the will of the Buffistas and it shouldn't be used. That's exactly why we have voting. I think it's a mistake to try and explore what makes a consensus too closely.

I understand what y'all are trying to do here. I admire you for trying to formalize the process and making an attempt to debate your respective points of view on this voting business.

That being said, if I read one more post about voting, my head is likely to go 'splodey.

I agree that six months is probably too long for a moratorium, but you guys continue trying to hammer out the process and I'll vote when the time comes. I'm just wondering how the hell am I going to feel when it comes time to vote in meatspace and how many tiny pieces I can rip my voter registration card into?

A consensus should be clear and obvious. If it's not clear or obvious then it doesn't represent the will of the Buffistas and it shouldn't be used.

I think it's a mistake to try and explore what makes a consensus too closely.

The problem with those two statements is that your "clear and obvious" doesn't equal someone else's "clear and obvious".

Cashmere - I think six months is too long, too. But I think what we really need to find out is if most Buffistas think that. My proposal is putting 6 months up for a vote, with no alternatives, just a yea or nay, thing, with a proviso for a gut check at 3 months, should six months pass.

Fuck that noise. Proposer makes the ballot (my ballot would say: 6 moratorium? Y/N. But I'm not the proposer.) and if you don't like it, vote no. Better yet, don't vote, so it won't get a quorum or whatever abbreviation it was we spent weeks bitching at each other over.

I concur. Crafting the ballot in Light Bulb just opens up the whole What's A Consensus Issue. Somebody puts the ballot together as part of their proposal, that is seconded etc. and moved to Bureaucracy.

I am interested in seeing what the community wants and acting on it. That's all.