My only clarification would be simple majority of votes expressing a preference (i.e. excluding "no preference"), just to be super clear.

(Might be the same point ita ! is making?)

Nice job.

A couple of corrections (in red)

Guidelines/Rules for Voting
1. By the end of the 4 day discussion period, the proposer will craft a final ballot version of the proposal. Proposers may change the wording of the final ballot based on the discussion or they may choose to use their original wording. We encourage the ballots to be Yes or No answers, but it is not required. [no preference was removed as an option. See here]
2. The proposer will post the final ballot text to the Lightbulbs thread [no need to email it to me; I read the thread].
3. Jon B will set up a web ballot, post the final ballot text, the link to the ballot and the dates and times of voting in the Sunnydale Press thread.
4. The web ballot will be open for 3 days

Guidelines/Rules for Voters
1. [No Preference was removed as an option. See link above]
2. If there are any questions during the voting period, they are asked in the Bureacracy thread

The purpose of the discussion is so that all who have an opinion can be heard. It can also be used as a place to come to a consensus on the proposal that will be made.

Does this mean consensus on the wording of the proposal? If so, maybe this should say something like "The purpose of the discussion is to allow all who have an opinion on the proposal and/or the wording of the proposal to be heard."

You no preference unpreferring people. I say Sophia should just leave it in. We can pretend that all never happened.

It's sad when you (I) can't really remember that there was a particular debate or, when reminded, remember which side I was on. Or if I even chose one. Did we vote about un-no preferencing? We are awesome and funny.

I like the polished version.

Jen, people even voted, "no preference" on the no preference vote.

Wow. I have no recollection of that at all. None. and I probably had an opinion.

Does this mean consensus on the wording of the proposal? If so, maybe this should say something like "The purpose of the discussion is to allow all who have an opinion on the proposal and/or the wording of the proposal to be heard."

I was trying to reflect (not sure if I did) that not only the wording of the proposal, but the proposal itself could change through discussion. It is just up to the proposer. I personally feel strongly that the proposer should, as a good citizen of the community, shepherd the proposal through making changes that reflect the discussion, so I may be showing my bias.

Also, the valid vote thing brings up a question. I am assuming that any proposal which is withdrawn r does not meet 42 can be re-opened for discussion. But now that there is no "no preference" I am not sure that is true.

Wow. I have no recollection of that at all. None. and I probably had an opinion.

At least I'm in good company!

Jen, people even voted, "no preference" on the no preference vote.

Ha! Love.

I am assuming that any proposal which is withdrawn r does not meet 42 can be re-opened for discussion. But now that there is no "no preference" I am not sure that is true.

I seem to recall (and we know what that's worth) that if something doesn't reach 42 votes, then it is supposed to get tabled for the allotted time. Not sure about withdrawn.

Jen, I think you're right. I believe there was one vote that didn't hit 42 and that it could be re-proposed after 6 months.