But didn't somebody run numbers that suggested that there was a strong causal correlation between numbers of threads and numbers of posts?

That is, you have 3 threads, you have 3000 posts; you have 4 threads, you don't have 3200 posts, you have 4000. (Numbers pulled out of Stephanie's frog-whistle.)

didn't somebody run numbers that suggested that there was a strong causal correlation between numbers of threads and numbers of posts?

I kind of said that, though not in so many words. More threads does not dissipate the same number of posts over a wider area, it increases the overall number, yes.

But if there's a fundamental issue where more posts means more instability, then we have to deal with it sooner or later anyway because the number of posts in that table will always get bigger unless they're actively removed in some way.

They're being actively removed.

Our database is large by HR's standard, and our posts database is most of that.

It was decided to archive many of the Natters, and I'm halfway through the accompanying coding effort to reroute links to those threads.

How will 6 certainly win?

Because, I mean, I've gotten a very strong vibe from this thread that the 6 people comprise a larger group than either the 3 people or the 4 people, if taken separately.

edit: and your ballot totally cuts out people who think 4 is fine, but 3 is too short, and would therefore vote for 4 first, but for 6 in a 3 vs 6 runoff.

... yes. That's a weakness.

I actually think that would unfairly penalise 6 months. See, if we go with that option, 6 would need to get over half the primary votes to win. The other two options only need to win a preferential ballot.

And I was saying that that kind of was fair, because, as I was seeing it, 3 and 4 are much more similar to one another than either of them are to 6.

But, you know, OK, so that quasi-preferential ballot of mine has those weaknesses. I really think we ought to go with an actual preferential thing. I'm with Jon.

I'm with Jon.

Wow! Thanks, Rebecca.

I'm with Jon.

Do you mean you're backing John?

Because, I mean, I've gotten a very strong vibe from this thread that the 6 people comprise a larger group than either the 3 people or the 4 people, if taken separately.

But if, as you say, the 3-or-4 people would all choose one of those as the first choice, and the other as the second choice, then the only way 6 will win on the preferential ballot is if more than 50% of the voters vote for 6 as a first choice, in which case 6 definitely should win.

t edit: OK, and now that I actually finished reading your post and realized that you're supporting preferential, I see that this entire post is completely pointless argument.

I would like to express that I believe 6 is the one true number. Except for 12, which is already dead. If 6 fails, I would vote for 3. Because splitting the year into thirds seems really really odd to me.

So advocating for 3 as opposed to 4, even though I support 6 is completely logical.

I know sometimes it is not clear why some of us push a bit on process issues.

I agree that we should strive for "good enough" rather than perfection. "Good Enough" IMO includes a modicum of fairness - not perfect fairness but some reasonable degree of fairness. Not because the issues are so important, but because deciding them in a way that is clearly unfair elevates them to an importance they won't otherwise have. Also, an unfair decision making process leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. People sometimes compare the Buffistas to an ongoing cocktail party; if the process set up is not reasonably fair, then the party will be slightly less fun; even those who pay no attention to process isssues will notice after a while. So a reasonably fair process, not perfectly fair, but reasonably fair is important - even in cases where the outcome is OK.

So far, we have one portion of our process that is informal, but I think nonetheless fair; once an issue is brought up for a vote,we use old style Buffista 'consensus' to set out exactly what the choices will be and what the language of the ballot is.

But in order for it to be reasonably fair (not perfectly fair, just reasonably, just good enough) I think we need to agree on one thing. We need to agree that if an issue has more than two reasonable potential choices, there should Not be a strong bias towards limiting it to two choices - not if there is any significant support for a third option.

Because the whole point of having a vote following the discussion is that opinion in the vote may not reflect opinion in the discussion. If we were not taking that possiblity into consideration we would not bother having votes; we would simply decide the issue by a majority of those in this thread.

Now in the spirit of "good enough" we don't try to include options that nobody in the thread supports; at least we have not yet. IMO though, any option that is a reasonable choice in relation to the issue under discussion, and has support from a strong minority posting on the thread should be included as a choice on the ballot.

Because otherwise you are calling a vote on an issue, excluding a reasonable choice with support from that vote, and not allowing a revote on it for between three and six month. And if that becomes our process, I think the amount of fairness won't be "good enough" , and the ongoing party this board is will be just a little less fun than it could be.

I don't care about the difference between our three choices that much. I care about excluding one of these choices, without a chance to vote on it, a great deal.

I hope the above was clear and concise enough not to constitute obnoxious windbaggery.

FWIW, I agree with you, Gar.