From looking at the database, 1547 of the 1839 registered users ever bothered (or managed) to click on the activation link in the email. I can't give any more solid or granular numbers about usage--I can tell the last time someone changed their profile, or do some arcane SQL to count everyone who has, say, read while logged in this year, but my head hurts too much to think it out.

Is it wrong that I hear this as "Warriors, come out and play"?

That's exactly how I was saying it in my head!

I think the central question still comes down to this:

Do you believe that splitting up the volume with multiple show threads dilutes or enhances the community?

That's really the only thing we have to determine. If people think it is a problem, then we should find a way to slow down thread creation. If people don't think it's a problem, then we don't have anything to worry about and we can just vote on threads as proposals come up.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I like to boil things down into concise statements, and I think this pretty much sums up the discussion. Thanks, Hec.

Because they registered? Connie, did you take a look at that Clay Shirky article I posted? I had you in mind in terms of people who protest whenever the suggestion is made that this is not a pure democracy.

ita's number about activation is a more significant number than registered. Yes, I believe those people matter.

No, I didn't read that article. If Hec's summary re: what defines core is true, and if the people who meet that criteria here are endowed somehow with a higher right to decision making, then I am deeply troubled. I hope that theory is utterly irrelevant in regards to the b.org.

I'm very happy with dropping the "who is core and does it matter?" issue. But I think the issue is the elephant in the room in regards to "what is this board and where is it going."

But Hec includes people who are here in Bureaucracy - > and this thread is not only open to everyone, isn't it one of those that will show up if you hit "read new" whether or not you subscribe?

I'm with Robin. Also, I don't think anyone, including lurkers (yes! I am speaking for you!), is advocating changing anything based on people who don't vote and don't post. How could you do that, anyway? If you're only a reader, you read what's there. No big. I'm curious about them, sure, but that's just me and my nosy. We need a lurkers thread (kidding, kidding).

I'm still pro-poll, because I'm curious. I do not think poll results should be an action item - I agree with whoever said that. I would also check off a "don't change a thing" ticky box.

Maybe a number of threads (or TV threads) limit is the answer/compromise.

isn't it one of those that will show up if you hit "read new" whether or not you subscribe?

No, but it's always there on the right, taunting with posts unread, if you're at any page that shows a list of threads. If you want a voice, ain't nothing stopping you.

Sometime when I have more energy I'll tell you how man of that 1500~ constituency have read anything this year.

Hmm. I'll be back in a second...

No one said that they, as people, don't matter, connie. Several have said that their opinions on how the board is structured don't matter because they don't offer up those opinions. We don't know their opinions - how do you make that matter?

Choosing not to post and vote is a choice. No one is disenfranchising people who read only. They choose not to participate in this messy thing we do. Hell, they probably point and laugh the most out of all of us, and more power to them.

Okay, 235 people have posted this year. I can tell you that much simply.

Is it wrong that I hear this as "Warriors, come out and play"?

No, it is soooo right that you do.