by bluewyvern » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:01 pm
This is why I think the minimum turnout stipulated was arbitrary and inaccurate. You said we'd use it and see how it worked, and I think we can see it didn't work very well.
These first issues I think would generate more interest than any, and I only see turnout declining from here (among current members, that is -- I expect our total members to grow). I think 33 (whatever proportion of active posters that represents, I can't recall) was too high. Probably everyone who voted in these polls was the entire self-selected group of people interested in participating in voting in general (roughly equivalent to the "registered voters" idea I mentioned), so we should use this number, not an arbitrary proportion of the total active posters, to determine quorums in the future. As a rough guess, I would say maybe 3/4 of the number that voted in the most heavily attended poll would be appropriate.
When we get a new record turnout, we use that number to set a new quorum (3/4 of the highest turnout). Of course, that only works as long as we keep growing, but I hope that's the direction we'll take for a while, rather than the number of interested participants declining over time. If that does happen, and the quorum is consistently not being met, we can discuss decreasing the quorum appropriately. I know everybody hated the registered voters, so how does this system sound instead? It tries to accomplish similar goals (tying the quorum percentage to actual expressed interest), with less paperwork.
Chacal and other abstentions: I hope you officially abstained, by voting in the poll, and not just by boycotting the process altogether. We still need official abstentions to determine how many people actually care about participating, even if they give this one a miss.
Concept, design, storytelling, editorial
KI# 05697413