Wow, this makes so much more sense to me now. Thanks, Voronwe!
For Question 3., do you want to add the choices
A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this satement.
What I'd like to do is start the vote at 7:00 a.m. GMT tomorrow morning and leave it open for 36 hours to make sure that all of the committee members have an opportunity to vote.
Did we find that 24 hours wasn't enough? (No big deal, whatever you decide is ok with me.)
(3)
• Secondary ID's may not post in the Bike Racks
• Secondary ID's may post in the Bike Racks if it was the secondary ID that was involved in the dispute.
It appears this choice didn't make it onto the ballot? I think I might favor allowing secondary IDs to post in Bike Racks IF and only if it was that name that had been involved in the interaction that went to Bike Racks. But I don't think I could vote for it if that wasn't specified. So could Question 14 read thus:
Question 14. Please choose one of the following statements:
A. Secondary screen names may not participate in Bike Rack discussions.
B. Secondary screen names may participate in Bike Rack discussions.
C. Secondary screen names may participate in Bike Racks IF it was the secondary screen name that was involved in the interaction that was moved to Bike Racks.
(Btw, I prefer the shorter wording, 'may post in Bike Racks'.)
Edit
I'm really torn over the question of secondary IDs in ToE. There seem to be compelling reasons either way. I would be interested in hearing from ToE posters, as to how they feel about it.