covaithe
Explorer
I'm a bit torn between the two alternatives, actually. On the one hand, a "yes, go ahead" / "no, discuss more" poll would give some legitimacy, and would only take a few days. On the other hand, there's been no real resistance to Graf's suggestion that we proceed with the previous four facilitators, so I seriously doubt there'd be any resistance to going ahead now. And I don't want to take anything away from the momentum we've got now.
What I propose is this: we go ahead with the five facilitators we have now without any further voting. However, if within, say, a week someone raises an objection, we'll put any proposals on hold and have a formal vote on facilitators.
So shall we facilitators continue to use the same supermajority rules for passing proposals? I.e. 3-0 is a pass, 4-1 is a pass, but 3-2 is a fail? I say yes.
What I propose is this: we go ahead with the five facilitators we have now without any further voting. However, if within, say, a week someone raises an objection, we'll put any proposals on hold and have a formal vote on facilitators.
So shall we facilitators continue to use the same supermajority rules for passing proposals? I.e. 3-0 is a pass, 4-1 is a pass, but 3-2 is a fail? I say yes.
