Ratification requirements

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Presently, the percentage required to ratify a Charter section is 50% +1 of at least 25% of the active membership.

A quorum of either 100 members, or 25% of active members (whichever is larger) is needed to ratify or make changes to the Charter. For the original Charter, a simple majority is needed to ratify each section. That majority will be recorded and inserted into the Charter for purposes of record-keeping.

Do you think 50% is enough? When a Charter section is quite controversial, for instance, having 55% of the membership in favour vs. 45% opposed doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. Perhaps a greater threshold is required.

Please vote in the poll.

[seebs]

I picked 65%, but really, I'd rather it be two-thirds.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I picked 65%, but really, I'd rather it be two-thirds.

Good point. I modified the poll option a bit.

[JamesBannon]

Yeah. I voted for two-thirds.

[ravenscape]

We've had over 300 members visit while logged in during the last 24 hours. That's encouraging, in terms of getting a high response to the polls. A significant portion of our members who visited in the last 24 hours did not post. That's discouraging in terms of getting a high response to the polls. I am less concerned about setting a 65%-66% of voters bar than I am about the 25% of active users. I hope we can reach 25% participation.

[Garnet]

What is the defintion of an active member of the board?

Of those who are active members, should lurking vs posting be taken into consideration when trying to decide on a percentage?

If we had, say. 100 active members, but less than or right close to 2/3 haven't posted in, say, the last 30 days, should that be a consideration?

How about, first, clearly defining what "active member" means?

Then, maybe consider what a reasonable percentage of vote is based on some actual numbers rather than a SWAG?

ETA: ravenscape ninja'd me. :D

[ravenscape]

An active member logged in at least once during the last 30 days. The board calculates that easily. Figuring out how many of the active users posted in that period is more of an eyeball exercise.

[Garnet]

Anyone have the technical ability/knowledge to query the database?

[ravenscape]

* whines *

I can probably come up with something, but dayum. I haven't written a sql query in a gazillion years. Not familar with the database structure either.

[Garnet]

*pats ravenscape on the back*

There, there.

There is bound to be some IT geek on this board that can do it.

Yes, I work in IT. No, I'm not technical.

[Garnet]

How's this for an idea? A one item poll that asks the question, will you vote in the Charter ratification process? That would give us a rough count of the people who intend to participate.

[seebs]

I write SQL queries all the time. I don't know the schema, but it shouldn't be too hard.

I think it'd probably be something like "DROP TABLE users;"

[Sylvanspirits]

Where is the 100% majority option? If one person disagrees, nothing gets done. And I'll disagree half the time just to spite people. :banana:

Seriously, I like 2/3rds.

[TransverseWave]

Where is the 100% majority option? If one person disagrees, nothing gets done. And I'll disagree half the time just to spite people. :banana:
:whack with trout:
:D

[JamesBannon]

I write SQL queries all the time. I don't know the schema, but it shouldn't be too hard.

I think it'd probably be something like "DROP TABLE users;"

That was wicked! :D

[ravenscape]

I write SQL queries all the time. I don't know the schema, but it shouldn't be too hard.

I think it'd probably be something like "DROP TABLE users;"

* snort *

Pull the other one.

[Pendaric]

An active member logged in at least once during the last 30 days. The board calculates that easily. Figuring out how many of the active users posted in that period is more of an eyeball exercise.

331 members have posted at least once in the last 30 days.

You can do it by setting up the right parameters in the Members List advanced search.

(Last post is after 30 July 2008).

[Alethias]

I write SQL queries all the time. I don't know the schema, but it shouldn't be too hard.

I think it'd probably be something like "DROP TABLE users;"Naw. I think it'd be more like "DELETE FROM TABLE users WHERE user_name="seebs";" but i could be mistaken :D

I do queries in MySQL databases on almost a daily basis, from simple to complex.

It'd be something like "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM USERS u JOIN posts p ON p.userid=u.userid WHERE DATE_SUB(CURDATE(), INTERVAL 30 days) > p.dated". Just guessing at the field names, but it'd something like this.

Want me to fiddle with this and come up with a count?

[Pendaric]

Is there something wrong with what I posted above for doing this?

[Alethias]

Is there something wrong with what I posted above for doing this?Not at all. I apologize if you thought my answer implied that.

What you did is actually better, as it provides a meaningful answer without requiring any special access or technical expertise. simple solutions are normally better.

I didn't read thru the entire thread when I answered. sorry about that, pendaric.

[Garnet]

OK, so according to the figures provided by Pendaric, less than two-thirds of our active members have posted in the last 30 days.

Based on that, I think we should consider a lesser percentage for ratification. I'm thinking that 50% or 55% would be sufficient, based on the numbers.

[Jobar]

There was a reason we set the bar at a simple majority of voters, you know. If one section of the Charter passes with, say, 52% of voting members, and then later some part of that section turns out to be problematic enough to want it changed, only 53% (assuming the same number of voters) will be able to change it.

Now, I *expect* that most of the sections will pass with considerably larger majorities than this; but say that one section doesn't make whatever minimum (larger than a simple majority) we set, but still gets more than a simple majority. Then what? Start the whole process over again? But most of the members voting wanted what was offered this time!

If a section can't make a simple majority, then I certainly agree that it needs re-doing. But for the first ratification, I strongly urge that we stick with 50%+1; or at the most, 55%.

[The 800# Gorilla]

I voted 55% because you will not (imho) ever get a 2/3 vote. 50%+1 is the best idea.

[Jobar]

As of right now (3:30 EDT) there's been only 16 people who have voted on this. So despite the fact that most of those have voted for 2/3, unless we get a sudden influx of voters, I'm going to stand behind the system already in the Charter.

Look, people, we've been working on this thing for more than a month and a half, and we committee members have been repeatedly asking for advice and critiques- and now we get the thing shaped up to our satisfaction, and *now* everyone wants to get changes made?!

If it was about parts we only recently completed- that Finance section, for instance, which I have been begging to have critiqued by someone who knows jack about finance, which I don't- then it would be different.

But for the things we've had completed to the satisfaction of the committee for weeks, and of the majority of those offering advice from the Peanut Gallery (to whom a thousand thanks, and :notworthy: ), have mercy on us! I personally am nearly burned out on all this, and damn sure don't want to have to re-write major sections of it.

[The 800# Gorilla]

Look, people, we've been working on this thing for more than a month and a half, and we committee members have been repeatedly asking for advice and critiques- and now we get the thing shaped up to our satisfaction, and *now* everyone wants to get changes made?!I say lock in the changes that you (as a committee) have made and implement them.

[Garnet]

As of right now (3:30 EDT) there's been only 16 people who have voted on this. So despite the fact that most of those have voted for 2/3, unless we get a sudden influx of voters, I'm going to stand behind the system already in the Charter.

Look, people, we've been working on this thing for more than a month and a half, and we committee members have been repeatedly asking for advice and critiques- and now we get the thing shaped up to our satisfaction, and *now* everyone wants to get changes made?!

If it was about parts we only recently completed- that Finance section, for instance, which I have been begging to have critiqued by someone who knows jack about finance, which I don't- then it would be different.

But for the things we've had completed to the satisfaction of the committee for weeks, and of the majority of those offering advice from the Peanut Gallery (to whom a thousand thanks, and :notworthy: ), have mercy on us! I personally am nearly burned out on all this, and damn sure don't want to have to re-write major sections of it.

^^^This.

[ravenscape]

Like I said, I'm more concerned about getting 25% of active members to VOTE than anything else.

[Pendaric]

I'm happy enough with majority percentage of those who vote provided that facility remains to change aspects of it if a greater percentage votes against it at a later date.

[Jobar]

Look, people, we've been working on this thing for more than a month and a half, and we committee members have been repeatedly asking for advice and critiques- and now we get the thing shaped up to our satisfaction, and *now* everyone wants to get changes made?!I say lock in the changes that you (as a committee) have made and implement them.

Two cookies for the big G.
:)

[TransverseWave]

2/3 is what I said, but if the percentage of people defined as active members who've posted in the last month is so low, then you probably can't use 2/3.

[The 800# Gorilla]

Look, people, we've been working on this thing for more than a month and a half, and we committee members have been repeatedly asking for advice and critiques- and now we get the thing shaped up to our satisfaction, and *now* everyone wants to get changes made?!I say lock in the changes that you (as a committee) have made and implement them.

Two cookies for the big G.
:)Thank you. Thankyouverymuch. I'll be for a very long time. ;)

[JamesBannon]

As of right now (3:30 EDT) there's been only 16 people who have voted on this. So despite the fact that most of those have voted for 2/3, unless we get a sudden influx of voters, I'm going to stand behind the system already in the Charter.

Look, people, we've been working on this thing for more than a month and a half, and we committee members have been repeatedly asking for advice and critiques- and now we get the thing shaped up to our satisfaction, and *now* everyone wants to get changes made?!

If it was about parts we only recently completed- that Finance section, for instance, which I have been begging to have critiqued by someone who knows jack about finance, which I don't- then it would be different.

But for the things we've had completed to the satisfaction of the committee for weeks, and of the majority of those offering advice from the Peanut Gallery (to whom a thousand thanks, and :notworthy: ), have mercy on us! I personally am nearly burned out on all this, and damn sure don't want to have to re-write major sections of it.

Emmm... I seem to recall recording misgivings about this some little while ago. However, be that as it may, no-one is asking for a major rewrite of the charter. Just elide that one paragraph. No rewrite required.

[hecaterin]

OK, so according to the figures provided by Pendaric, less than two-thirds of our active members have posted in the last 30 days.

Based on that, I think we should consider a lesser percentage for ratification. I'm thinking that 50% or 55% would be sufficient, based on the numbers.
Umm, is there actually a fixed definition of "active members"? Why not limit it to those who have posted within 30 days, or even 14 days?

Plus I don't see what difference the size of the quorum makes to the proportion of votes required.

[Pendaric]

OK, so according to the figures provided by Pendaric, less than two-thirds of our active members have posted in the last 30 days.

Based on that, I think we should consider a lesser percentage for ratification. I'm thinking that 50% or 55% would be sufficient, based on the numbers.
Umm, is there actually a fixed definition of "active members"? Why not limit it to those who have posted within 30 days, or even 14 days?

Plus I don't see what difference the size of the quorum makes to the proportion of votes required.

The definition of an active member used above was one who had posted in the last 30 days. If you drop it down to 14 days then there are 274 active members.

I think we should use the hack that R'n'R uses where when there is a vote it comes up on everybody's screen when they log in. That gets a decent proportion of votes in.

[Octavia]

^I've got no objection to that. Is it something we could implement fairly easily?

[Pendaric]

I've no idea on the technical side of things. You'd have to ask Matt.

[leccy]

As of right now (3:30 EDT) there's been only 16 people who have voted on this. So despite the fact that most of those have voted for 2/3, unless we get a sudden influx of voters, I'm going to stand behind the system already in the Charter.

Look, people, we've been working on this thing for more than a month and a half, and we committee members have been repeatedly asking for advice and critiques- and now we get the thing shaped up to our satisfaction, and *now* everyone wants to get changes made?!

If it was about parts we only recently completed- that Finance section, for instance, which I have been begging to have critiqued by someone who knows jack about finance, which I don't- then it would be different.

But for the things we've had completed to the satisfaction of the committee for weeks, and of the majority of those offering advice from the Peanut Gallery (to whom a thousand thanks, and :notworthy: ), have mercy on us! I personally am nearly burned out on all this, and damn sure don't want to have to re-write major sections of it.

Then why even ask?:confused:

[Jobar]

Well, we were asking all along- but when we announced that we had what we felt was a completed Charter, we had hoped that any real policy issues were already thrashed out, and that the request for critiques would be for stuff like grammatical errors or minor re-wording, which we could do without more debate and skull sweat.

Apparently that was unrealistic, though.

[leccy]

Well, we were asking all along- but when we announced that we had what we felt was a completed Charter, we had hoped that any real policy issues were already thrashed out, and that the request for critiques would be for stuff like grammatical errors or minor re-wording, which we could do without more debate and skull sweat.

Apparently that was unrealistic, though.

My point is that we have a poll here, to determine the communities response to what percentage of members need to have voted for ratification.

You've just said that although the poll shows that a two thirds majority is what the community members who have voted have as their majority preference that you will ignore that poll and proceed as had been previously intended.

So why even have a poll, if you are not going to take any notice of it?

Just do it.

You've been entrusted with coming up with a charter, people have had ample opportunity to critique the charter and if they had wanted to say anything, make any modifications etc then they should have done so. Posting a poll at this late stage causes exactly the problem that you've encountered here. You either ignore it or abide with it and gruntles will be dissed as a result.

[Jobar]

One problem is that this poll was started by KWSN- who has graciously volunteered to be the pollster for ratifying the Charter, but is not actually on the Charter committee. So, in point of fact, we (the committee) didn't open or instigate this poll. It was KWSN's idea, and execution.

We on the committee did ask for critiques, and often integrated those into the Charter, while we were in the process of writing it. All our discussions have been public, save for a very few (less than a dozen in my case) PMs to other committee members. There was astonishingly little backroom wheeling and dealing.

Also, all of us were getting quite burned out from the degree of concentration we've been putting on this. So if I've made any snarky comments to anyone in the last few days, please chalk it up to that! I am so fuckin' glad that it's completed- and whether it passes or not, it represents my own personal best, and I'm quite proud of it. :)

And from the very early voting, it appears that I was overly pessimistic in thinking some of the sections wouldn't possibly get two thirds 'yea' votes- so I hope that renders the disagreements in this thread moot.

[Stout Drinker]

We've had over 300 members visit while logged in during the last 24 hours. That's encouraging, in terms of getting a high response to the polls. A significant portion of our members who visited in the last 24 hours did not post. That's discouraging in terms of getting a high response to the polls. I am less concerned about setting a 65%-66% of voters bar than I am about the 25% of active users. I hope we can reach 25% participation.

I think a forced read or at a minimum a large annoucement at the top of every thread would encourage more people to vote.

I've been lurking around and I almost missed that there was a vote for the charter.

[Jet Black]

likewise

[Octavia]

I PM'd Matt a few days ago asking about the forced read thing, but haven't heard anything back yet.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Currently, we have 404 members who have posted in the last month, so 25% of them is 101.

Only two of the polls have so far reached even half that number of votes...

[Jobar]

If we can avoid forcing people to vote, I'd prefer it that way. Can we do a larger announcement at the top of every forum?

After a couple of weeks- somewhere around Sept. 15- if we haven't gotten sufficient votes to ratify, then we might think about using the RnR system.

[Worldtraveller]

Currently, we have 404 members who have posted in the last month, so 25% of them is 101.

Only two of the polls have so far reached even half that number of votes...

I was just about to come ask this question....

It may be that for at least this one occasion, we might want to use the 'forced vote' procedure like they have at RnR. I wish we could implement something like a quorum requirement on the US elections. :D

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

How about posting an announcement at the top of the main index page?

[ninewands]

For initial ratification I think 50% + 1 is good. I think the bar should be set higher for amendment and modifications, however, emendments (correction of typos in the version voted upon or other non-substantive errors) should stay at 50%+1 or even be limited to majority staff approval, with an open option for the staff to refer the question to the membership for decision where the correction MIGHT be interpreted as substantive. After, all, nobody is perfect as either a typist OR a proofreader and the "many eyes" theory from the open source movement does reduce the number of bugs in the code but it doesn't get ALL of them.

[ravenscape]

I forget where I mentioned this. Probably in the open staff forum somewhere. The hack to force people to visit a thread once has been added.

I have mixed feelings about using it for the Charter. We style ourselves a consultative republic, but there's only so much we can do to induce people to consult or participate in the charter business. Requiring people to visit each poll thread won't guarantee that people vote, and may cause them to vote with ire (i.e., against the charter altogether).

[Jobar]

Yeah, I've thought that too. I suggest we give it until the end of September- 30 days instead of 2 weeks. We didn't ever set a time limit for original ratification, and in fact if anyone had suggested it I'd've opposed it. Just leave the sign up, and we'll see how it goes at the end of the month.

Right now, I think we have enough 'aye' votes to pass all sections, even if everyone voting from now on voted nay. However, I'll be happier if we don't have to hold anyone's nose to the grindstone, no matter how important it is.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Requiring people to visit each poll thread won't guarantee that people vote, and may cause them to vote with ire (i.e., against the charter altogether).

That's why an abstention option is good - it gives someone the "out" of saying "I don't care, just let me be" without having to either arbitrarily support or oppose the thing.

We definitely should never use the hack for any poll without an abstention option.

[Richard]

37 people have voted...and you are wanting about 200 votes? ... you have your regular posters, and then those that don't post that often, or just come in check a thread and leave. Asking for 200 votes is a lot. And who is to say that everyday the number of "active" people will change....does that mean the 66% fluctuates too?

I voted with the majority though, just because :D << perfect example of not paying to much attention and just voting w/o knowledge..hehe



:swordfight:

:wizard: ( I love this one )

[Jobar]

This poll was started because some people felt we needed more than a 50+% majority to ratify the Charter. It isn't officially part of ratification.

Really a couple of dozen more votes are all that's needed to pass the Charter. Thanks for doing your part! (Even if you didn't read it.) :)