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.

Thank you for that post Kat. That's all I was asking for -- a reason.

Cindy -- I'm confused by your new ballot. What is the purpose of the second question?

I realized that my only real objection to regular runoffs as opposed to instant is my own impatience. And this is my issue, not anyone else's. So my position is going back to "I'm fine with whatever."

I'm with Hil.

Cindy's second ballot is fine by me, but really, whatever everyone else wants. Trying PV is fine, doing a runoff is fine ... I don't care that much. I would even be fine with it if we just decided to call 6 months a consensus -- I think it's too long, but honestly, I am so ready for the procedural stuff to be over that I don't care.

Cindy -- I'm confused by your new ballot. What is the purpose of the second question?

The purpose is to determine (only if six doesn't pass) whether people want a longer or shorter moratorium.

Would it be more helpful for Question Two to be worded thusly?:

Question Two

If, and only if, you voted "no" on question one, please choose a number between 1 month and twelve months to define what you think is the appropriate length of time to close discussions.

This results of Question Two will be moot if Question One receives 50%+1 "yes" votes. The results of Question Two will only be used for informational purposes, if Question One fails to get 50%+1 "yes" votes. It is not binding. It is just a survey to get a gut check on what people want.

1 month
2 months
3 months
4 months
5 months

7 months
8 months
9 months
10 months
11 months
12 months

Is that better, Jon?

Yesterday, I said that we should give PV a try but I really don't care. I just want to get something done. I really feel like this is hurting us so much. People's feelings are being hurt. People are leaving over this. It's just not worth it. I was originally pro-voting because I hoped we could make decision making go more smoothly and avoid ruffling so many feathers. Now, it just seems like we've opened an even bigger can of worms.

Honestly, I think Cindy's ballot may be a way to avoid the hurt feelings that might occur over this issue.

So, what's happening now?

Here's where I'm at: my main goal is to be able to stop talking about this. Which is why yesterday I said let's just do a regular runoff, and not the PV -- because I assumed it would lead to more annoyed conversations. As it has. Rightly or wrongly, there are people who BOTH understand AND don't want to use PV. For whatever reason. Honestly, I don't think the reason should matter. And the "if you understood it, you'd like it" attitude is just as annoying now as it was a couple of weeks ago.

I'm tired of doing this. I just want to be done.

Jesse - any opinion on putting the 6 months up for a vote by its lonesome?

I would love to put 6 months up by its lonesome. And when it passes, we can reconsider it in six months if we want.

How about how I worded it, with a gut-check (just on the moratorium itself) at 3? In other words, in three months, we say, "we're half way through our first discussion moratorium. Let's have a votee of confidence that we chose well."

That way, nobody is really kicked out of the process. If those of us who know three is right, are in fact right, everyone will see our brilliance by that time.

If those of us who know three is right - end up being wrong (you know, for the first time in our lives), the six months stands. It lets us introduce the moratorium, but it doesn't nail us to it, if we find in practice that it's too long of a time.

My suspicion is that in three months, we'll think three months passed really quickly, and this is coming from a 3-is-the-one-true-number person.