board77

Yes, Voronwe is right. We ended up with quorum = 39 by taking 30% of the 127 members registered as of March 12. We did not look at their level of activity, and there were additional active members shortly thereafter.

I did not mean to imply that the two calculations came out the same, but rather that I had confidence in quorum =39 because we have not had trouble reaching it until now.

Just btw, I made an error in the above calculations, using the second moment of the function instead of the sampling distribution to get stardard deviation .... again [shrug], for those who care ... the offset is much closer to 4% than to 5%, resulting in quorum = 40. I also consider that achievable. Far more achievable, at any rate, than 44. Though I'm happy to go with Idyl's 5% - he eyeballed that quite accurately.

Jn

People, I am going to do now something radical and if no one objects within the next five hours, it will stay done.

For the sake of consistency within the charter ... under Article 11: Standing Committee, we briefly described the Committee for Binding Votes and referred the reader to Article 7 where all the detail about Binding votes is contained.

But in the paragraph about the Committee for Amendments to the charter, we included all of the detail in Article 11, and only referred briefly to Article 12, ¶2 where the stuff we're discussing now will be contained.

These are the two voting Articles we will present for ratification and I don't like it that they are handled differently. People should know consistently where to look for certain kind of things.

In the ratification thread for Article 11, I warned members that the detail about the Amendments committee would probably be moved - not changed, but moved. I would like to move it now, before the members begin officially discussing it, and put it here instead for when they ratifiy quorums and everything else about amendments.

It will also be easier for members to compare Binding Votes and Amendment Ratifications if they are looking at both of them at the same time.

The first paragraph in Article 11, ¶2 will remain as it is and where it is. The rest - composition of the committee, how to convene the committee, etc. - I am pulling out now and placing it in the first post of this thread for inclusion in this article.

If you don't like this - please shout before 11:59 pm GMT tonight. I know this is not quite fair warning ... but in this case I would insist that we ratify moving those paragraphs for consistency after we finished ratifying all articles and it is much, much easier to do it this way, now, before the members ratify, than it will be to try and explain what is being moved where afterwards.

Jn

Eruname wrote:

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:

If I were still a Ranger, I would go and see how many people were active the 60 days prior to June 27, when the last votes ended and we opened the doors. If (as I suspect) that number is significantly lower then 183, then Jn's calculations should be revised.

If you tell me how to do it, I'll be more than happy to find this out.

You can't. I lied. Or rather, I was confused, but once I started thinking about it, I realized it couldn't be done. Sorry about that.

Well, we're coming up with a maximum likelihood estimator, emphasis on the word "estimator." We have to build into the Article where the records will be kept that allow us to calculate this estimator, and under what terms it will be re-estimated (and there must be posted somewhere easy to find, like in Michel Delving, HOW to do the re-estimation).

I'm not suggesting that we compel some future Mayor to calculate standard deviations, but the whole moving average minus 5% thing should be explained.

Jn

OK - I don't believe any new proposals are going to be put forward at this time, so I've posted a Draft Ballot in the first post, containing everything I could think of as an option discussed for dealing with this ... oh screw, and I just remembered something that I left out (the Global emails) and will add directly.

Please review the ballot and make suggestions. I'm going to try to run votes on all the current issues at the same time, and we're still haggling over one or two, so I'll get as many Draft Ballots up tonight as I can and we'll take it from there.

Jn

Can't find anything to complain about - ballot looks good
_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

Something else that I forgot - I'm going to add it to the ballot, but also post it here so that people can object or insert choices.

What is we don't make a quorum?

I'd like to see the following language added:

If the vote has not attained a quorum at the end of the voting period, voting may be extended for an additional five days. If, at the end of the extension period, a quorum has still not been obtained the proposition will be considered defeated.

Can we perhaps consider : 5 days or more but including one weekend?

You know...

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

That a great idea, Jn (big surprise, that ).

Alandriel, I would prefer to just make it 7 days. Then it will always include a weekend and reads nicer.

Will do that change right now.

Jn

Mossy,

Sorry for the delay. Yes you have the general idea. Thanks for putting in the effort to understand.


Jnyusa,

Thank you again. Things like this have been rattling around in my head for longer than most members have been alive, so I tend to forget how unnatural they are for most people. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.


I hope everyone understands there are two things working against the simpler methods. One is the declining interest of the current members as shown in the 11 votes cited by Jnyusa. The other is that new members are likely to be less interested in governance and therefore be less likely to vote. Both of these will drive the percentage of the membership that votes down. We don't know where the bottom is, which is the reason for the more complex method. If I am totally wrong, there is no harm. As Jnyusa showed, my method approximates the one in use.

IS, no worries. Thanks for being patient with my almost complete lack of comprehension.

Jn, that sounds good. The ballot looks fine.

Ballot looks good.

And thanks Jny and IS for your patience

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

VOTING IS NOW OPEN

We'll vote for 48 hours until ~11:59 pm GMT on Saturday

Jn

1. As indicated by 2, two weekends inclusive

2. A

3. D, C, B, A

4. A

5. A

6. A

7. A

8. A

9. A

10. A

Question 1: A.


Question 2: B.


Question 3:
1. D
2. C
3. B
4. A

Question 4: A.

Question 5: A.

Question 6: A.

Question 7: A.

Question 8: A.

Question 9: A.

Question 10: A.

Question 1: A.


Question 2: B.


Question 3:
1. C
2. B
3. A
4. D

Question 4: A.

Question 5: A.

Question 6: A.

Question 7: A.

Question 8: A.

Question 9: A.

Question 10: A.

Final Ballot

Q1: A

Q2: B

Q3:

D
C
A
B

Q4: A

Q5: A

Q6: B

Q7: A

Q8: A

Q9: A

Q10: A

About question 6:

I should have made this objection earlier, but I only thought of it last night. I can't approve of the text in question 6 without an addition that a time to reach quorum can only be extended 7 days if the vote is above 67% for approval after the normal voting period.

Cosider the following scenarios:

Quorum is 30 members.

1:

Vote at the end of normal voting period is 19-yes, 11-no. The vote reached quorum and failed to achive two thirds of the vote, so the amendment fails.

2:

Vote at the end of normal voting period is 18-yes, 11-no. Because the vote failed to achieve quorum, voting is extended 7 days and 5 more yes votes roll in while zero new no votes come in. The amendment reaches quorum and passes 23-11.


To me it's screwy that a 19-11 vote means defeat while a 18-11 vote means a possible second chance.

Question 1: A.

Question 2: B.

Question 3:
1. D.
2. B.
3. C.
4. A.

Question 4: A.

Question 5: A.

Question 6: A.

Question 7: A.

Question 8: A.

Question 9: A.

Question 10: A.

Question 1:
A. I approve the additional text

Question 2:
B. Omit the requirement that votes run for two weekends inclusive

Question 3:
1. D
2. C
3. B
4. A

Question 4:
A. I approve the text

Question 5:
A. I approve the text

Question 6:
A. I approve the text

Question 7:
A. I approve the text

Question 8:
A. I approve the inclusion of this provision

Question 9:
A. I agree

Question 10:
A. I approve this text