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?",

Nutty - If it's not too painful, maybe we can discuss tonight on the ride into Worcester?

Oh, shore. I have spent many many brain cells on it; I don't care when it goes public except I'd prefer not to make it the focus of bad feelings and/or indifference. Everyone must be chipper! And perky! And interested in my great labor!

And I like to think it's totally unassailably right, and will not need a single word changed or any suggestions made. Okay, sometimes, I am delusional.

See, when I think back over the feelings expressed in the last few days, I have to say that for everything that somebody says makes them cry about the process, there are five other things that somebody else says, "no that's not it, something else makes me cry."

I feel confident that I've been able to distill it down to "Bureaucracy makes people cry, except for some people who just don't get worked up over it."

Not that this makes it clear what we should do about it.

Some people are happy with voting, some people hate it with a burning, fiery passion. Some people cry over the language, some people get a kinky pleasure from the language.

What do we do about this? I don't know. Now that we've been using the system for a few weeks, I feel that the process is too long and involved for the creation of a thread. I don't think thread creation needs four days of discussion. You either want a thread or don't.

Process stuff maybe does need a few days to discuss things, but the discussion process makes people cry.

There are a few things that some people are deeply worried about (with good cause) , like - now that we have a process, is everything up for grabs? Could people force a vote to change our name from "Buffistas" to "Monkey in your FACE, Monkey-Haters!!!" which would be a stupid name, but it could happen.

There are some people that are baffled that people worry about that, but that doesn't mean they don't have a point, it doesn't mean that maybe there should be a list of things that are never allowed to come up for a vote, but it also doesn't mean that doing that would go smoothly. In fact, it would probably be just as divisive as anything else we do in here, so maybe it's not such a good idea to take on.

What's to be done? I don't know. Helpful, aren't I?

Thanks for doing this Nutty-- I don't want to step on your toes and I appreciate how positive you are here when everyone is so convinced that things are going to hell in a handbasket.

The reason for my suggestion is that I find in my dealings with people here at the university that no one reads instructions. They still ask-- so the shorter and more concise the instructions are, the more people use them. It sounds like your document will do that.

I really think the answer to a lot of this is learning the procedure, by heart, so there is no question and 500 different answers. Thing is everyone also has to buy into it, and not resist. I think a lot of our energy has been resisting change and what should have been a really simple process was not.

Also, I thought majority just meant most as well.

Majority means most to the non-math people. (Okay, or to me, too, anyway).

Would it be possible, perhaps even good, to delay beginning the vote on this until we can see Nutty's document so we know what's been decided that will be covered under this current issue? As it stands, I don't know what I'm voting on and sure, not voting or registering no preference could be a solution, but it doesn't feel right to me. If I knew what was actually decided that this impacts, I'd feel better casting my vote.

edit? what edit (frickin' affect/effect)