When to close the polls

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Although it's not specified in the Charter, I think it's best that the Charter polls be closed 30 days after the date they were started. This can be implied from the Charter as well. An active member is defined as someone who has logged on within the past 30 days. If the vote exceeds 30 days, then not everyone who has voted may be an "active member" thus invalidating the vote. If a poll fails to bring in 25% of the active members within 30 days then it should be declared invalid and closed. Another poll would have to be started from scratch.

[Jobar]

I had been thinking 2 weeks, unless we haven't achieved a quorum by then. But I have no objection to 30 days.

If we haven't gotten ratification of all sections by then, I would say we should institute the RnR system- as people log on, they're directed to the polls, and *have* to vote. But hopefully we won't need to do this; in whatever case, I think this decision is the staff's.

added- I believe that in all 7 sections, the number of 'yea' votes is such that the Charter is effectively ratified now, even though we haven't reached a quorum; but as to whether the staff should start implementing it, I would say wait until all the required votes are cast.

[ravenscape]

Seems we're getting a continuous, though slow trickle of votes now that the link is at the top of the page.

It's clear from the numbers that some folks who voted so far didn't vote in every poll. I hope they'll come back to the polls they passed on originally.

[Alethias]

Either a quorum or 30 days, whichever comes first, seems to me to be consistent with the intent of the charter.

[umop apisdn w,I]

We should have added (and possibly still can add) an "Abstain" choice to each one - so people who have no strong opinion either way on a particular section can register that lack of opinion and count towards Quorum.

At the moment, there's no way to distinguish between "I considered it carefully but didn't commit to voting 'yes' or 'no' because I have no strong opinion" and "I haven't even looked at the thread".

Basically, when looking at percentages for majority status (i.e. whether a vote passes) we should be comparing 'yes' votes with 'no' votes and ignoring 'abstain' votes; but when looking at absolute numbers in terms of quorum and validity of a vote we should be adding 'yes', 'no' and 'abstain' votes together.

[Jobar]

When we first started the polls, I mentioned that if we have to go to the RnR system we should then add an 'abstain' option to all polls. But I hadn't thought about using abstentions as counting towards a quorum; probably we'd have reached it by now, if we'd done it that way. Ah well. I knew we didn't have it perfect, anyway. And I'm sure that if we leave it open until 10/10 [correction- 10/1], we ought to have sufficient votes on all sections; though I'm a bit concerned about the Ratification & Amendments one, it's trailing considerably.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

If there's no objection, I'll add an abstention option to the polls. I suppose that might help bring in the numbers, but I think it might be a good idea to implement the log-in hack. Voting has petered off to a trickle and I doubt it'll reach 25% of active members by the end of the month.

[Jobar]

How many per day, approximately? If it's more than 3, we may not need to implement the RnR system. But if it's less... well, I had hoped to avoid it, but it isn't like we'd be using that hack on a regular basis. So I am pretty much neutral on this.

[ravenscape]

This weekend it's been very slow. I'm curious to see what happens on Monday.