I really don't get this "vote yes" tendency theory. I see it as a statistic with a ridiculously small sample, and even if it is a tendency, it could be because people with their finger on the pulse of the community are crafting well-written proposals.

What's the big?

Yes, it is a statistic with a small sample, which is why I'd like to have a proportionately small anti-sample, so that we can say it's disproved, and not have to talk about it any more.

However, if we have an overwhelming stated opposition to an idea, but the vote itself were to get approved, then I think we have a problem, and it's not well-crafted proposals in a good sense. Since the language of the proposal can end up being the only text regarding an issue a non-Bureaucracy voter sees, there stands risk that all votes are skewed by the bias of the proposer.

Now, mind you, I don't think this is actually a problem for us. I think the hundred or so voters are remarkably well-informed. I'm just saying if we voted on an issue with known opposition, and it still passed by a significant margin, we might want to look at the process. However, this makes DX's issue a test case, and I don't think we owe it that disrespect.

I really don't get this "vote yes" tendency theory.

Absolutely. As an example: every time I go to the grocery store, I buy something. In the abstract, it could be said that going to the grocery store in and of itself makes me buy something. Presence in grocery store= yes vote on consumerism. Or I could say, instead, that I don't go to the grocery store unless I plan to buy something. Being in the grocery store is not the "but for" cause of my spending money. It's just the final stage in the process.

We don't propose or vote unless a change is likely to be made; I don't go to the grocery store unless I'm going to buy something-- what's the point of the process for a negatory?

The moratorium.

Well, the process is a high cost exercise for just a moratorium (let's go through this proposing/discussing/voting process to elminate the future possibility we may go through the p/d/v process, shall we?). Hopefully there's some possibility of a yes vote, or else it wouldn't be proposed for even moratorium purposes.

even if it is a tendency, it could be because people with their finger on the pulse of the community are crafting well-written proposals.

Well-written proposals would just be masking the tendency, which I see as akin to the tendency for incumbents to get votes on name recognition. Most incumbents may be competent, but if you can run someone who is same name, no relation (or incumbent, but dead), and they win, the voting tendency is too strong.

the process is a high cost exercise for just a moratorium

Somebody (Betsy or Anne?) is planning a proposal on a negative issue right now, phrased like "Resolved: No revisiting the old hard-fought consensus decisions for a vote." That desire for closure is the kind of thing that would motivate someone to go through the process just for a moratorium. It's really only the proposer and seconders who get to decide if having the process is worth it.

phrased like "Resolved: No revisiting the old hard-fought consensus decisions for a vote."

It will be "no revisiting stuff for X months." If it turns out that the process is being abused by folks sneakily hoping to get something moratoriumized, then we can revisit the process (not just the thing moratoriumized) in X months.

And if it's an obvious abuse of the system, it's unlikely to get the needed four seconds.

Well-written proposals would just be masking the tendency, which I see as akin to the tendency for incumbents to get votes on name recognition.

Well written proposals COULD be just masking the tendency. You're going to need to show me evidence it's anything other than a hypothetical to convince me.

Being in the grocery store is not the "but for" cause of my spending money.

And we're back to torts.

Although I get a kick out of Burrell's theory that if we propose it, it will pass, I think we have to remember context. We decided, given our newly acquired girth, that voting would give us a clearer idea of what people want, than bureaublahblah alone.

• Most of the proposals to date, have focused on process

• Most ballots were crafted after intense community discussion

• Most ballot crafters took input from the community

I don't think we're lemmings who'll approve anything put on a ballot. I think we've listened to each other, focused on the elements people have said are important to them, and then reaffirmed it by a ballot.

As for the moratorium on withdrawn proposals, I think it's overkill. When things are withdrawn, they're usually going to be withdrawn because they're unpopular. Unless someone out there thinks they could have crafted the initiative differently, in a way that would please most Buffistas, the issue is going to die. If someone out there can craft the initiative in a way that pleases most Buffistas, and can point out to us that it's useful, well then - good on us and good on them, too.

My kittens are on the fact that this locked-to-members idea is going to go into its own self-imposed moratorium, anyhow. On the off chance it doesn't, I can't imagine it getting seconded again, unless it's different and full of potential. If it is seconded, it's probably worth discussing on it's own merits. If not, if it ends up being a rehash of the previous unpopular idea, we'll vote the sucker down.

I think if we disallow DX from withdrawing, and/or impose a moratorium on an already organically dead issue, we're going to end up drowning in detail.