What kind of threshold should a vote have to pass before being implemented? Do we really want to be making changes based on a vote that only got one “Aye”? Ten Ayes? Over 50% of the user base?
What kind of vote engagement can we reasonably expect to achieve? Is it actually likely that 50% of the user base will engage with any particular vote? Are there any useful presidents out there?
Who should be responsible for counting the votes when they’re over? Perhaps the OP tallies the votes and edits the post?
Is there an easy test the mods can apply to a tallied vote to allow them to check whether it’s passed? Something that is not open to interpretation and results in a clear directive to make a change?
I’m also kind of testing out this discussion format as a way of generating things to vote on i.e DISCUSSION > POLL > VOTE seems to make sense.
We’ll see :)
If we implement a quorum (which I’d support on decisions of greater impact, e.g. defederations), it should be based on “active” users, however one determines that.
With access to the database, it might be easy for a bot to look for users who read the discussion linked in the vote post.
I don’t think we need to restrict to active users.
I did not say I want only active users be able to vote. I wanted to imply that the quorum needs to count against active users as opposed to all users of the instance.
Reason: there will very soon be a lot of unused accounts. Given enough of these, no vote could ever be successful.
I agree that using total users would not be workable.
The best set of possible voters is only those that have read about the issue being decided.
I’d put local users subscribed to the community as the next best available set.
Then active local users.
Finally, the set of local users.
I believe we should be able to get a number for any of these sets, so using the third or fourth best option should not be necessary.