Forum:Cornerstone rule changes - Quorum Vote

Hi Everyone,

This is the republishing of the Quorum vote, now with options to vote for 5, 8, or no change. The vote is being republished due to Agent C's retirement, and the added option of 8 votes. Whichever option receives the most support will pass, and become ratified. The original Forum can be found here, under Proposal 1, and the original Vote can be found here. 04:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal[]

That for all purposes, the minimum number of votes required for the vote to be effective is 5 or 8 votes, including neutral votes. (This does not include those who comment without leaving a vote by the time the vote closes).

It is also requested by those who are voting that this vote be considered effective even if the present minimum is not met.

Poll finished on 4:37 am November 23, 2023 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Votes[]

5 Votes[]

8 Votes[]

1. MadMikeRyan aka Mickey Blue Eyes • (Talk/Message • Contributions • Matrix) 05:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
2. 07:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
3. (Talk) 15:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
4. The Appalachian 16:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Varvendale (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Saxhleel12 (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
7. I feel that this is less about quorum than encouraging people to bring stuff to a vote. 【Ｔａｇａｚ���ｅｌ】 ☏ 11:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
8. seems like a formal step to address the somewhat stagnant climate. the fact that this is the first quorum that's come to my attention in over a year of editing is illustrative of the problem. overturning it will be effortless if eight people object to the results. Anachorite (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
9. Starkiller111 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral[]

No Change[]

1. The last vote already enough to show that this wasn't actually needed. Great Mara (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
2. When votes are properly advertised, we get enough for quorum - at this point, I think the problem is less about the number and more about making votes accessible and known, which isn't really something that can be adjusted in policy, it just requires the word to be put out there. LaymansReign (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Same thoughts As Mara and LR. Savior DJ (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Same thoughts As Mara, LR, and DJ. Kendallb9000 (talk)
5. Same thoughts As Mara: there is enough partecipation not to require the lowering of the required votes. TigerSteeve (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
6. LLxMystic(talk)
7. The entire point of having quorum, is to avoid scenarios where low-quality forums are pushed out and then legitimized with as little effort as possible. If an important forum isn't meeting quorum, then that's what the administrative consensus addendum is for. ^寧靜 22:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
8. Just seems no need for it to be always a lower amount of votes. Perhaps deciding the threshold on a case by case basis would be better. Kittybright (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
9. Vote change explained in comments. DynV (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments[]

Mara, this republishing was needed because of A, the departure of C again, and B: the added option of 8, which was added a few days after the vote started. 07:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse, you know what I mean. The last vote easily reached 14 total votes, which belies the entire reasoning for decreasing the number of votes for quorum. The last vote also never expanded on just what "required" changes even were. And there are hardly "desperate times" calling for "emergency action" around here. Great Mara (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

you know, im something of a right angle myself. 04:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

i would be interested to see examples of undesirable quorum votes held within the last year, especially any cases which reached eight affirmations but not ten. LR makes a good point, this may be a misdiagnosis, but i also strain to imagine the negative impact of this proposal in the current climate. Anachorite (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

😆 DynV (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at the vote again and perhaps I misunderstood it. I thought the change of 10 to 5 passed, and this was attempt at cancelling it, thus voting no here would maintain the quorum at 5. Does no to this mean the quorum is 10 or 5? DynV (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Previous vote was canceled and redone, so quorum at this time is still 10, so this vote will have an outcome. Jspoel 21:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) 👍 DynV (talk)

Result[]

Votes are tied, but this forum demonstrates 10 votes can easily be reached as long as you promote it. Also the other user rights request forums go well beyond 10, so 10 it stays. Jspoel 15:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)