I linked the proposed ballot - so people could see what it looks like. I SPECIFIED it's a PROPOSED one. If people aren't reading the post before clicking the link they should be shot.

Okay, maybe not shot. Spanked?

edited to clarify...

The above was an attempt at being funny with a fake-overreaction. Feedback indicates it bombed, horribly. I am sorry. Didn't mean to upset anyone, and didn't mean to offend. I'd edit it out, but I don't want to make folks look crazy.

Cindy, I read the post, and I think you're being a bit harsh in your tone, there.

The ballot does not currently stop you from voting for the same thing twice. If you can do that, there's no point to the runoff, is there? That was my point. Please chill.

you can use it to vote for your first choice twice, which seems to not be the point of an instant run-off.

Oooh. I hadn't thought of that. In any case it's a moot point since it looks like the instant runoff is dead for now.

Another vote for proposer crafts the ballot, with the caveat (maybe obvious), that there always has to be a "no" or "none of the above" vote. For instance, the ballot couldn't just say "choose between 3 or 6 months" because then you disenfranchise folks who want neither. "No preference" is not the same option in this case.

Cindy, I read the post, and I think you're being a bit harsh in your tone, there.

I was trying for funny, Michele. Sorry I came across badly. I am very chilled and didn't mean to unchill your or anybody else.

Can we please get PV/runoff for multi-answer votes in the discussion/vote queue so we don't need these last minute workarounds anymore?

Er, if the onus of writing the proposal/ballot falls on the proposer, then it's the proposer who decides whether there is a multi-answer question, and how to vote on it.

Thus, the issue's been consensed around. Unless that consensus isn't, in fact, workable? Basically, it's a case-by-case situation.

Is that an accurate representation of the current thinking?

I've read over the discussion both here and in voting. It looks to me like we're getting something worked out over the current proposals, so I'm not going to touch that.

I do want to address one thing. I've heard the phrase 'old Buffista consensus' being applied to getting an informal majority on the boards. I strongly disagree with this usage.

Consensus meant that everyone posting agreed on the compromise. Someone would say, "It seems like there's consensus for: x" and we'd all say, "yea" if there was, or hash it out if there wasn't.

That's what consensus means. That we all settled on a choice that was mutually acceptable. Not that it pleased each person mightily. But that we could all live with it. Sometimes it meant we had to make the choice to live with something we disagreed with. But we felt that we'd survive the choice, and wanted the community to move forward. So we consensed.

There were problems with this. One was that since consensus happened spontaneously, we missed some people due to timing. (The midnight thread-namers what names at midnight, for example.) Two was that sometimes people just shut up, instead of agreeing to agree or disagreeing. They then felt alienated by the process or overrun. This is our fault as a community by not making the discussion feel open, but the posters also have responsibility, because if we don't voice our opposition, how will anyone ever know? But the result was that people felt consensus, as it stood, didn't work.

So we're voting now, and you know, that's fine. We now have winners and losers. We now have majorities and minorities. I'd have preferred if we still had community agreement (even if it's just agreement to live with the decision), but that's okay. We have a way to make conclusions, and that's a good thing.

What I don't want to get lost is that consensus wasn't just informal voting on the boards. It was a mentality. A process. A way to debate with wit, and to concede with grace. So please don't say, "that's the old Buffista consensus" when we disagree, but with a majority, on the boards. Because it isn't.

I just want to take a moment to thank Jon for the ballot set-up, and mention how much of a dork I am. I'm all excited that the votes are being sent to votes@buffistas.org, and going right into the little folder I set up in my personal account. So fun!

You're welcome Jesse.

It was a mentality. A process. A way to debate with wit, and to concede with grace.

So worth repeating.

Thank you Jon for the form. Thank you Sophia for the ballot and all the shepherding.

Thank you Buffistas for coming back again over and above your annoyance and making nice.