Cindy, generally I am with you on the above. I have many thoughts about future thread creation, and possibly shrinkage. I would like to post those thoughts at such time that they are relevant thoughts. I hope that time is, like, Thursday or Friday.

But I am also a nerdy detail freak.

Count me in the group of people who gets incredibly confused by the wording of -- and discussion of -- proposals up for a vote. Not JUST the Grandfather proposal, but all of them.

In fact, didn't we have to re-vote on something because people didn't understand what a Yes or No vote meant they were choosing?

I'd prefer simplicity.

In fact, didn't we have to re-vote on something because people didn't understand what a Yes or No vote meant they were choosing?

That was because some people voted for "majority" using the interpretation of "more than anything else," while some others read it as meaning "more than half."

I think our decision on a re-vote to go with the second meaning is going to cause more problems than it solves, as questions with 3 or 4 natural choices end up being thrust into dichotomies, adding to the level of tortured language and tortured pre-vote discussions. But that's my issue.

That was because some people voted for "majority" using the interpretation of "more than anything else," while some others read it as meaning "more than half."

Okay, so I didn't remember the exact reasons there was a re-vote. My point still holds, which is that there had to be a re-vote because of a misunderstanding of what the wording meant.

I know -- I was just supplying details, steph.

And yet, Steph, it was because we used a "simple" word, (i.e. "majority") that we needed to have a revote. If we'd used more complicated language (i.e. "50% + 1 of the votes cast excluding those for no preference"), we wouldn't have needed to revote, but people would have complained that the wording was too complicated. We can't win!

But I am also a nerdy detail freak.

Oh, me too. Me too. Me too. Me too. But dammit, the buck stops here.

Steph - that revote happened because I used an (apparently now) archaic definition of majority. Like I didn't already feel old enough. I used majority to mean "most" rather than "more than half".

Cindy--evidentally i've been using the same archaic definition of majority.

Cindy, I understood it the same way.

< stifles self before she begins expanding on benefits of the alleged archaic definition further >

May I suggest, kindly, to Nutty and Jon (and anyone else whom I may have missed) that the sooner we get the document explaining the voting procedures and history up, the better? You've mentioned waiting so as not to muddy the waters, but I say, go for it. I've seen a lot of confusion in the past couple of days that I think would have been resolved if not pre-empted by such a document. And, of course, it should be linked in Press and probably also in the bureaucracy and voting thread headers. I really appreciate the hard work that's gone into this, and look forward to seeing it, and hope it will dramatically reduce hand-wringing and "wait, did we vote for that?",