River ,'Objects In Space'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
Do you mean you're backing John?
I don't actually think it was so insane of me to have read it that way, okay? Now I know Allyson hadn't meant it that way but I don't think it was completely off-the-wall, by the way it was phrased, to have read it the way I did.
I wholeheartedly agree with Gar too.
Cereal:
Discussion closes on this issue at 12:00 a.m. We might want to have a ballot drafted before then.
I was just about to say that
a) we need a ballot
b) we need a counter
and
c) I have class tonight so won't be available until 10 pm to draft stuff. I am available on and off today.
Right now, I say that
a) we need to include 3, 4 and 6 on the ballot and have a run-off if need be, unless te threes and fours can agree on one, because to me that ensures that 6 will win.
b) I think the moratorium includes BOTH things that have lost and things that have "won". so we can change minimum voter turnout, etc. I think it would be sort of rude to say, propose we close the Due South Thread or something, but I guess one could...
I'm willing to count ballots.
I hadn't thought of that, but technically the moratorium vote is up for a revote after the moratorium period. So for example if people feel 6 months was too long, it's not immutable.
Jesse, I've pointed the vote@buffistas.org and votes@buffistas.org to point to your profile address.
If the 3 and 4 people can't come to an agreement, I propose we do an old-fashioned runoff. Have 6, 4, and 3 on the first ballot, if nothing gets 50%+1, vote again for the top two. It's not like this is so urgent it can't wait a few more days.
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.
Concur. I think people have kicked it around enough that there is no strong bias on the low end towards 3 or 4, and that all options will need to be on the ballot.
Preferable if we could've gotten the ballot to two choices, but in this instance the most fair thing is to include 3, 4 and 6 on the ballot (and hope that 6 gets more than 50%).
It will have to be either a runoff or preferential voting, and I'm seeing an inclination for just doing the runoff now. However, there was tentative consensus (at one time) to just try the preferential voting and see how it worked. I don't care either way, but I'm willing to try the preferential voting to see how the community responds to it. Because that would make future votes easier. Also, I'll just reiterate the point brought up before - it may be the preferential voting is only difficult in the abstract. Once people do it a few times it might become more obvious. I'm willing to allow a learning curve on this.
As somebody noted in Bureaucracy, we've put ourself in a somewhat difficult position where we aren't really just discussing the issues, but crafting the ballot over here. That's okay - I think there's been enough discussion that folks see three viable options that need to be considered.
As somebody noted in Bureaucracy, we've put ourself in a somewhat difficult position where we aren't really just discussing the issues, but crafting the ballot over here. That's okay - I think there's been enough discussion that folks see three viable options that need to be considered.
Eh, maybe. But what if someone today says "5. I like 5." does 5 go on the thing?
It's not like we're reinventing the wheel. I think I'm with JET on the whole mess.