I like Cindy's alternate proposal. A lot.

Also,

the only two polite reactions are to either calmly ask him why or to ignore him.

Shouldn't have said "ignore". It's a "no" vote. But I wouldn't give it any more weight than that.

I'm still (way too slowly) catching up on this thread, but what I'm reading and what Cindy is proposing [Edit: in Cindy "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Mar 25, 2003 8:33:37 am EST] seem to go along very well together. I'm all for it.

Cindy, I think your proposals are well-reasoned, fair, and make a lot of sense. I also think we shouldn't use them. The averaging proposal is good in theory but most people have expressed that they want a number that evenly divides the year, so it's 3, 4 or 6, for the most part and that's going to be difficult ensure. The 6 months with a vote of confidence is good, but it's going to require a consensus that I fear will be no easier to get.

I am also a little perturbed that the moratorium ballot has failed to go through b/c of the multi-vote issue, and I'd really like to see it get posted without the PV option because it's probably going to be a non-issue when the One True Number gets the real majority.

it's going to require a consensus that I fear will be no easier to get.

Already with the meta-reasoning? ;) Why don't we wait and see before we presume what people will think?

REVISED PROPSED BALLOT:

Question One

After a proposal, discussion and vote, further discussion on a given matter should be closed for 6 months. If this initiative passes, we agree at three months from the day (date) the poll closes, to take a vote of confidence on this decision (only), to see if we think 6 months is too long, too short, or just right.

Yes ______

No ______

No Preference ______

Question Two

If, and only if, you voted "no" on question one, please choose whether you think 6 months is too long or too short. If you voted "yes" or "no preference" on question one, do NOT enter a vote for question two. Can't you read?

Shorter ______

Longer ______

_______________________________________________________

Note that the result of this vote will apply to ALL decisions, affirmative and negative.

" My theory is that almost everyone against trying it "just this once" is against it because they perceive that others are against it and don't want to upset them. If those people could be shown that there are only a couple of people against it for it's own sake, then they might change their minds.

No Jon, I'm against it because I am a person who is pretty much anti change. There's been such change in what our community is going through with voting period. I also think that if there are 2 options or 8 options and we can't get 50%+1 to agree the first time around, then it isn't a majority that wants it. For me, I am fine with slowing the process of change down a bit. In fact, I'm very okay with slowing it down. Because waiting an extra 3 days and asking people to reconsider their options isn't a bad thing to me but a positive one because I don't mind if things don't change.

What I don't see is why it is Imperative that we have an answer as Quickly as our voting process allows. Because, for me, quicker isn't necessarily better.

t deletia for unnecessary stuff

What is unclear to me is why runoffs are such a horrible prospect. Why have we assumed there would be a runoff?

However, I don't give a shit at all anymore. I think I have just proven to myself that I cannot be arsed to read in here at all anymore. I'm glad that there will be people who continue to love governing and be into the process, but I'm not one of them at this point.

So discuss and decide on. I'm done.

Already with the meta-reasoning? ;) Why don't we wait and see before we presume what people will think?

I know, but in all fairness to the process, we've come in here for four days to hammer out the ballot, and if we have to wait for another consensus (which based on previous postings on 3, 4, 6 and monkey I doubt we'll ever see) this issue is going to get delayed and delayed and delayed. We owe it to the board to put up a ballot now and if that means sans PV so be it.

So profound, it had to be said twice. :)

Cereal: Re: Cindy's revised proposed ballot

For consensus purposes I'm fine with it. It's fair and makes a lot of sense. But for practical purposes I think it's going to be more difficult to explain how this ballot is more fair than a PV ballot. And I'm not going to try. I just hope some ballot gets posted in Press in the near future.

The 6 months with a vote of confidence is good, but it's going to require a consensus that I fear will be no easier to get.

I disagree. I'm just going on my gut in proposing this. I haven't run it by anyone via backchannel. But I am feeling in that gut, that to some extent, the people who don't want to do the preferential voting, in part, don't want to do it, because they just want things plainer. People are ready to overturn voting as a whole, when we're so very close.

I hate 6 months. Going on the Burrell-theory, I know this is almost sure to pass and that kills me. But I think this other stuff is tearing us up, and the more detailed we get, the morely likely we're going to implode. And this gives us an out at the lowest proposed moratorium time period. So if we end up hating six, we can change it, after experiencing a moratorium of at least a while.

We came here and stayed here and wanted to vote here, because we love it here. That's already the best argument for little-to-no change - EVA!!!!!

Also, very much what amych said in bureaucracy, but I'm too tired to rant.