UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/No minimum vote on APD

Currently (as of 13:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC),) the final part of the A/PD rules reads:

Voting closes after 2 weeks of voting. In order to pass, a policy must receive a two-thirds majority and at least 20 total votes. Policies that pass are then added to the Approved Policies header, and should be announced on the Wiki News box on the main page.

The community has shrunk quite a bit since this has been written, so some policies have had a little trouble getting the required number of votes (yeah, I know that the last two would have failed anyway, but the point stands - we can't expect 20 voters anymore.)

This policy will reword the final criterion to read:

Voting closes after 2 weeks of voting. In order to pass, a policy must receive a two-thirds majority. Policies that pass are then added to the Approved Policies header, and should be announced on the Wiki News box on the main page.

The part requiring twenty votes will be removed.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. Author vote. See the talk page for a longer rationale I couldn't include here. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
2. Very much so in favor of. The wiki needs this if anything is going to get done around here on a reliable basis when it comes to policy. —Aichon— 05:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Sadly, it's true. Policy discussion gets little attention now. Mostly just the regular wiki-lurkers and we can't always count on twenty to take interest. ~ 05:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
4. As Vapor. I've been watching this discussion (well, half-assed watching, tbh), and I think that the people who vote regularly on these things amount to less than 20. -- †  talk ? f.u. 05:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
5. For - Obvious need is obvious. If this ends up being near-unanimous but fails due to lack of voters, I wouldn't mind a manual override of current policy to shove it through. I can think of little that would be less acceptable than us becoming unable to change any policies, including that which prevents us from doing so. --VVV ^RPMBG 06:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   If it gets close as time is ticking down, I think you can count on pretty much everyone to meatpuppet this one through. —Aichon— 06:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   This. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

6. My noodle. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 07:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
7. For - Having been a victim of the 20 votes clause myself, the need should be obvious. And now excuse me, I have to let loose my meatpuppet army. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
8. For - You have my blade.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   By the way, I won't be supporting any meatpuppetry on this policy. You should inform people about the policy vote, but you shouldn't tell them how to vote.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   I think that's what we all have in mind. I consider meatpuppeting to be any attempt to bring in folks from outside of the typical wiki community for voting, regardless of the instructions they are offered (or, in the case of some groups, the orders they are given), hence the confusion. People should always vote according to their conscience and not be coerced into voting a certain way. —Aichon— 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

9. For - you've got my vote Louis Vernon 15:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
10. For - So Sad. So True. --DiSm ~ T 18:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Against

1. Against. not just for the sake of it but because i genuinely think that there should be a minimum number of votes for a policy to claim any sort of support. Lower the figures to 15 with the proviso that any vote that achieves a 10+ yes's but doesn't get to that magic 15 is still passed and I would say yes. Without a minimum number (ignoring meat/sock votes) there is a strong possibility of people slipping stuff through at quiet times... like Christmas! --Honestmistake 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)