Vote to Bypass Vote Length in Extreme Circumstances

This post is locked.

Herr keplers·8/21/2016 in Community Voting

This should be fairly common sense and I cannot envision anyone objecting, but there is no clause that specifically allows for a vote to pass in this case. Assuming that there is a vote that has been agreed upon by over 50% of the whole community (or an otherwise overwhelming majority, like a unanimous 49% of the community within 24 hours), the vote can immediately close as it is quite literally impossible for the vote to not pass.

Just as a clear iteration for those who did not catch it the first time, this applies to 50% of the community, not 50% of those who have voted.

A) Yes 13 votes

B) No 0 votes

Consensus

Yes.

(Edited by administrators)

SkepticQuark·8/21/2016

This is not a country so the decisions aren't life threatening or anything. Letting this happen might actually speed up the decision making.

(Edited by SkepticQuark)

Brick425·8/21/2016

A downside of any direct democracy is the time it takes. This would definitely help. Good idea for a vote, I must say.

(Edited by Brick425)

Dark Yada·8/21/2016

AAAAAAAAAAA

Yada Dark 17:46, August 21, 2016 (UTC)

(Edited by Dark Yada)

EvilMidnightNG·8/21/2016

(Edited by EvilMidnightNG)

Majolo9050·8/21/2016

(Edited by Majolo9050)

Peudguin·8/22/2016

(Edited by Peudguin)

JMW wolfpack·8/22/2016

(Edited by JMW wolfpack)

LordWeirdo·8/23/2016

Alemas2005 wrote: Um, yes, this vote would make perfect sense...

...if only we could actually know how big the active community is.

</noscript>

Using Special:ListUsers, even after deselecting all the irrelevant groups, we get over 900 records, including dupes and blocked users. While I would be voting A), I'll hold back until we can sort this out. We'd need a census.

</noscript>

While yes, we usually have around 40 active members at any one time, it often happens that inactive users pop back in for a vote. It's definitely not as straightforward as you think.

</noscript>

My concerns exactly with this vote. Ironically, in attempting to bypass a bureaucratic hiccup, we find ourselves looking at a bureaucratic mess.

(Edited by LordWeirdo)

Herr keplers·8/23/2016

LordWeirdo wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote: Um, yes, this vote would make perfect sense...

...if only we could actually know how big the active community is.

</noscript>

</noscript>

While yes, we usually have around 40 active members at any one time, it often happens that inactive users pop back in for a vote. It's definitely not as straightforward as you think.

</noscript>

My concerns exactly with this vote. Ironically, in attempting to bypass a bureaucratic hiccup, we find ourselves looking at a bureaucratic mess.

I look to Roddy's comment. If it's that awful, all we need is a blog with a poll on it with one option: "I am active here." Users are directed there and the poll's results are the official number of active people on the wiki.

(Edited by Herr keplers)

TheShadowAssassin·8/23/2016

Herr keplers wrote:

LordWeirdo wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote: Um, yes, this vote would make perfect sense...

...if only we could actually know how big the active community is.

</noscript>

</noscript>

While yes, we usually have around 40 active members at any one time, it often happens that inactive users pop back in for a vote. It's definitely not as straightforward as you think.

</noscript>

My concerns exactly with this vote. Ironically, in attempting to bypass a bureaucratic hiccup, we find ourselves looking at a bureaucratic mess.

Users without an account can also vote, and also, who's to say that everyone is going to vote anyway? I could just choose not to.

(Edited by TheShadowAssassin)