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: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura
Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina
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.
And, honestly, it's a low-risk vote. It's not changing a proscribed behaviour. We'll be just fine.
I don't see any reason to change to the current quorum system.
Great, this does not seem to be an issue. Just wanted to clarify to Steph one point.
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?
No, my suggestion was to put to a one-time vote whether a requester can voluntarily extend a voting period by 3 days to gain a quorum. If it passed, that would be a permanent amendment to the voting procedures and would not have to be voted on again.
Again, no need to consider. It appears the issue is a non-ish one.
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.
This was posted in Press on the 19th for discussion and voting closed on the 22nd. That's three days total for everything. The rules pointed to talk about four days for discussion and three days to vote. That did not happen here, unless I am blind and there was something posted on Oct. 15th about this that I missed.
Yeah, I do only check here and there, and if it had been a week, I would have had time to participate, and presumably other people are in the same boat. I'm not outraged, I'm annoyed, I've had my say, and I'm over it.
No, the 19th was the beginning of voting, not the beginning of discussion.
