Really? That logic makes no sense to me. If someone likes things the way they are now, I would think that he/she would want it to stay the same, and so he/she would vote against any proposal to change it. Certainly that is the logic that has driven me every time I have voted against a proposal.

What Daniel said.

Also, a lot of people ignore the voting entirely since the whole "voting" phenomenon seems to have been tsuris from the beginning.

I'm just saying that plenty of folks tuned out back during the heady days of the prefferential voting debate.

The consistent passing of the proposals could well indicate that it's a like-minded group crafting (and voting on) them, not that they are particularly well crafted or loved.

I suppose it is too late to have some sort of reinstatement override procedure?

If someone gets kicked off and enough people feel there was an injustice done, can we consider some sort of override vote?

Not that this will ever happen, I just don't like absolutes.

In the corporate world, absolutes lead to firings, even though others feel the infractions were minor. I'll have to look over the last few million or so posts to find out if I'm missing something.

By the time I got here from Bureau the ballot was set how it was going to be.

Which is precisely msbelle's decision. However, if 100 people thought she was on crack and voted no, and only 20 people voted for her proposal, isn't that alternative?

I mean, either you like the status quo (folks didn't, enough), or you like the proposal (enough did), or you wait until discussion can reopen.

I don't see the zero alternative thing you do.

What if I proposed twenty people now? Or when I came in half way through the conversation. What if the large majority of THAT vote thought 20 was the right number?

either you like the status quo (folks didn't, enough),

The voting folks didn't. A lot of people stay out of it.

I'm not saying that the votes haven't been valuable information, but they aren't necessarily mandates either.

What Daniel said.

Actually, unless my reading skills have deteriorated, you aren't saying the same thing at all. He said, basically, "I was too busy." Fair enough. But you are saying, "some people are so upset with the whole voting procedure they are tuning it out."

The voting folks didn't. A lot of people stay out of it.

Okay -- those that cared enough to vote, or were around, or whatever. I do not pretend to have any clue to the opinions of the silent, because of the choice they made. Perhaps most folk liked the status quo. Perhaps they didn't. Doesn't actually matter.

Why aren't votes mandates?

What if I proposed twenty people now? Or when I came in half way through the conversation.

To be honest, I don't recall if a don't touch period has been decided on. If so, you'll have to wait before proposing 20 people. And then you're free to. If there isn't one, you can propose it right away. That's the answer to the first what if.

The second -- if you'd convinced the proposer to make that amendment to the proposal, well, there you go. Msbelle started out with 24 hours, suggestions were made for 48, she changed it to 48.

What if I had started my proposal two hours after Msbelle had?

Actually, unless my reading skills have deteriorated, you aren't saying the same thing at all.

I agreed with his point and then listed additional ones.

To be honest, I don't recall if a don't touch period has been decided on.

I thought that it had. Didn't we vote for 6 months, with a check in at 3 months to take the pulse of the board?

What if I had started my proposal two hours after Msbelle had?

As in made the suggestion, or as in received all the seconds you required?

If you got the seconds first, then your proposal goes live first, I think. If not, if you want to discuss the same thing she's discussing with different parameters, you can't until the waiting period if over.

I don't quite get your point. You sound disenfranchised, but I can't put my finger on your reason.

Perhaps most folk liked the status quo. Perhaps they didn't. Doesn't actually matter.

Well, it matters, it just has little to do with how the decisions are made.

Why aren't votes mandates?

A mandate would indicate overwhelming popular support for a proposal. Since so many people don't participate we don't really know if these are a series of marvelously constructed ballots or not.

I'm just saying that a small portion of the board has gotten into the proposing and making rules thing. And the people who aren't don't seem to vote.