bon, do you think that kind of poll would have the negative results you're concerned about?

No and yes. I think you've addressed some of my concerns. I am as curious as others to see how it shakes out.

I make the following predictions, though: in a world where we are considering the injustice of disenfranchising people who don't vote there will be controversy over any result. There will be complaints that we are disenfranchising the minority. And the losers in this will want to run this poll again within the next 24 months.

in a world where we are considering the injustice of disenfranchising people who don't vote

Is anyone actually doing this, though?

Is anyone actually doing this, though?

This is a little ambiguous. Are we going to do anything about people who don't vote? No. Has there been a lot of agita as if we were going to do something to people who don't vote? Yes.

The poll doesn't change anything - it just clarifies how people see the board.

Even if a majority of people want one thing, it would take a separate series of actual votes to make anything happen.

And we're not obliged to take any actions.

I just want to separate information from the noise of the discussion to get a sense of how people perceive these issues.

235 people posting, 1547 members?

Very interesting number. I suspect my facetious reference to being a summer time replacement soap opera for some folks may have more truth than I thought.

I'm not discussing the disenfranchisement of people who don't vote. I've been discussing the marginalization of people who may have posted only once or twice this year and don't feel they have enough street cred to make themselves heard.

Edit: If they don't speak up, no, we don't know what they want. But I believe the border between lurker and intermittent poster in a side thread--such as, theoretically, someone who pops up with a bit of technical know how to a question over in the Tech thread--is a narrow one. And being told no one of alleged importance gives a damn what they have to say is not conducive to them speaking up.

Right. In an attempt to move this discussion forward, and do this poll thing we keep talking about, I generated a poll using David's questions above.

Unless anyone speaks up naysaying, I'm going to go mention this in Press. I can also pop into the other threads and mention it there, unless someone else wants to pick up the ball and run with it.

I kind of wanted to see if people had any comments or issues with the poll before we ran it. I mean, I don't want to run it twice if haven't phrased it well.

But I believe the border between lurker and intermittent poster in a side thread--such as, theoretically, someone who pops up with a bit of technical know how to a question over in the Tech thread--is a narrow one.

On the other hand I see a bright clear line. If you have posted or voted, you are not a lurker. End of story. Some non-lurkers are more active than others, but a lurker's pretty simple to not spot.

And being told no one of alleged importance gives a damn what they have to say is not conducive to them speaking up.

No one has said that. Everyone has made it very clear that the definition of a lurker is someone who reads only and doesn't post or vote. (ETA: and that lurking is value neutral) The only way someone will speak up is if they want to.

I've been discussing the marginalization of people who may have posted only once or twice this year and don't feel they have enough street cred to make themselves heard.

That's an assumption about a group of people who may or may not even exist. I don't see the point.

If you want a voice, you have to post or vote.

On the poll: are " don't change anything" and "more threads will dilute" meant to be complementary or opposing positions? "Check one" implies, to me, that the three possible answers should be mutually exclusive, or at least clearly differentiated.