Speaking of verbiage, does anyone have a problem with me posting in Press about submitting suggestions for additions to the FAQ?

Sophia kindly sent in stuff for the new legal speak section, but I'm sure there are other terms that should probably be added.

All you have to do is act like it passed, and voila! It's not like you're forced to disobey the verbiage, or anything.

And even if it had passed, it's not like the cat herding would have been any easier.

I almost did not vote, but somehow managed to get around to it. Then I thought "maybe I should remind people", but did not get around to it. (So, you could argue its really all my fault.) At any rate the simple solution to avoid not reaching quorum in the future is for supporters of a proposal to remind others to vote. Go ahead, nag.

Everyone wants this proposal to pass, no? Procedures are important, but not set in stone. I think it would be okay to make the following motion to modify the voting rules:

Where a vote does not receive a quorum of 42 within the 3 day voting period, the voting period may be extended for another 3 days at the request of the proposer. This rule has retroactive effect.

Get 4 seconds, discuss. Vote, then if it passes, apply to previous vote.

(Note - I'm not making this motion, only because I have no time to herd it. Just throwing it out there.)

Here's what's really simple--if you want to effect that F2F behaviour, DO IT. It only happens once a year, and there's plenty of time to propose it again for next year.

If you want to weaken or eliminate the quorum, that's a whole different thing. But there is absolutely nothing in the way of taking Pix's suggestion, and I don't know why people are disappointed if 42+ people actually want to do it--42+ people do it!

But if you're going to say "If we don't get quorum let's keep going until we get quorum" let's just step up and get rid of the damned quorum. Because there's no point working around it and keeping it.

I think that this is a bad idea. Although, this may not be the case in this instance, I think that sometimes proposals don't get the votes because people don't think that the issue needs to be ruled on or they are neutral on the issue. Forcing a vote changes that dynamic.

Get 4 seconds, discuss. Vote, then if it passes, apply to previous vote.

Wait. You're saying if a vote doesn't get a quorum, the proposer has to request a voting extension, and that request has to receive 4 seconds and then go through the discussion period and then go to a vote?

I don't like it, because it's too much like putting the issue to a second vote right away instead of waiting the appropriate time period.

Also because it's just a layer of complication that I think is unnecessary to our voting process, which has worked very well for 7 years, with the exception of the F2F vote.

Honestly? It ain't broke. It don't need fixing. Not on the basis of one vote in 7 years that didn't get a quorum. I think all the other votes that DID reach a quorum are precedent and proof that the system works.

t edit And what ita and Vortex said.

I don't see how anything is harmed by saying this vote did not reach quorum and so didn't pass. It was about pimping for the F2F in October, right? And it's practically November already. Why not let the pimping this year start in Nov and put it to a vote again later if we still want to move the pimping to Oct?

I'm with Burrell.

I hope by saying this, I did not inadvertently create a circumstance that would require a 3rd and 4th, a discussion and possible vote.

I think that sometimes proposals don't get the votes because people don't think that the issue needs to be ruled on or they are neutral on the issue. Forcing a vote changes that dynamic.

If I had to guess, this vote didn't reach a quorum because not many more than 25 people go to F2Fs these days, and the vote really only affects the "pimps" (I think I'll call them pitchers instead). We don't need to change our quorum rules because of that.