If you're subscribed to Press, you know there's a vote.

Traffic patterns change because peoples' lives change. The way they choose how to spend their attention changes. Changes in lives can also yield changes in things such as concentration, and decision-making processes. Those changes may cause changes in how promptly they can take an action such as voting.

I'd like to point out that almost everyone here who didn't vote said they meant to, but didn't, not that they didn't know it was going on. In my experience, as someone who surveys extensively as part of my job, extending the voting period does not change results. (In fact, it often lowers particpation because it encourages procrastination.)

What megan said, absolutely.

What Windsparrow said. I knew nothing about the existence of the vote until yesterday, when it was too late.

Point taken, Jesse, about some of the more contentious discussions, but this was not one of them, am I correct? So posting the poll with such a short time frame didn't have anything to do with actually needing an answer right away, it had more to do with the people who were around wanting to get it over with. Which is fine, I guess that's the voted-on procedure, but if the desire was to get participation, the process for this vote did a lot of discourage it, not facilitate it.

I'd like to point out that almost everyone here who didn't vote said they meant to, but didn't, not that they didn't know it was going on. In my experience, as someone who surveys extensively as part of my job, extending the voting period does not change results. (In fact, it often lowers particpation because it encourages procrastination.)

This is an excellent point.

So posting the poll with such a short time frame didn't have anything to do with actually needing an answer right away, it had more to do with the people who were around wanting to get it over with.

No, the vote happened when it did because of the rules. Four days for discussion and three days for voting. As stated before.

the process for this vote did a lot of discourage it

As far as I understand it, the process for this vote was the same as for any other.

the process for this vote did a lot of discourage it, not facilitate it.

But Java, the process has been in place for seven years now. So if you check in less than every four days, you've always known you risk missing notification and discussion of a vote. This isn't new, and you must have missed many more before now. I can see you being disappointed, but there's no room for outrage.

If you object, put the wheels in motion to change the process. There was no nefarious plot going on to get this out of the way where people couldn't see what was happening. It was perfectly normal Buffista voting process, which majority has long agreed upon.

The process of this vote did not do a lot to discourage it. The process of this vote simply was.

So posting the poll with such a short time frame didn't have anything to do with actually needing an answer right away, it had more to do with the people who were around wanting to get it over with.

No, not at all. It was conducted according to our process that we've used for SEVEN YEARS.

So posting the poll with such a short time frame didn't have anything to do with actually needing an answer right away, it had more to do with the people who were around wanting to get it over with. Which is fine, I guess that's the voted-on procedure, but if the desire was to get participation, the process for this vote did a lot of discourage it, not facilitate it.

If you feel that way, I think the issue would stand for every vote. I don't think that someone made a choice to try and exclude people, they were just following our rules (which are admittedly not posted, but I think we are working on that). In that case, we could definitely have a proposal to discuss a change.