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.

And just FYI, some votes are coming through, so we'd better make sure everyone knows what's going on.

OKay, people. I go away for the Great Nutty Spring Leg-Shaving Event, and we go 100 posts into madness and indecision!

What are we fighting about, here? I really suspect the issue is that not enough people care for 3 or 4 to make either one the choice. When people have said 3, or 4, on this thread, they've mostly said "shorter time" but not particularly differentiated between 3 and 4, except inasmuch as they break up the year into different fractions. (I tend to see an edge for 3 in this instance, because several people have mentioned that doing things every 1/3 of a year is weird.)

The preferential voting thing causing a lot of anger and craziness over something that is, at best, peripheral to the question at hand. I suggest we drop it for now just so we can get the actual proposal, which is actually on the floor, to a vote.

I like Cindy's ballot, but I would modify its phrasing to seem less fatalistic:

" After a proposal, discussion and vote, further discussion on a given matter should be closed for 6 months some time. 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. Should this time period be longer or shorter?

Yes ______ ( ) shorter -- 3 or 4 months

No ______ ( ) longer -- 6 months

No Preference ______

Whatever the results, we will revisit this decision in three months (July 1, 2003) to take a vote of confidence on this decision (only): to see if the 'moratorium' time period we voted in is too long, too short, or just right."

I tend to agree that 6 months will win, unless there's a groundswell I don't know about. But that allows the "vaguely 3 or four 4" crowd to coalesce around the single idea of shorter, exactly how short to be determined later. In fact, My suggestion is based pretty solidly on something Sophia suggested 3 days ago, that I liked, but I've taken out the simplified preferential part of it. So, thanks Sophia.

Going Forward
On a technical note, I think it worthwhile that the proposer of a proposal be the one who (a) writes the initial proposal; (b) writes the final proposal after 4 days of Light Bulb; and (c) makes the announcements in Press. It clarifies where the onus lies (and takes it off Sophia's shoulders, unless it's her proposal). The incentive for clear and easy ballots is that you won't get a minimum turnout if nobody can understand the ballot. Or everyone will vote for Pat Buchanan, and then the apocalypse will commence.