Hi all, I agree with Joachim Breitner. I've worked with a number of groups with various approaches to collaborative decision making (not just just those called "voting"); and imo the recent upset has nothing to do with the "voting" procedure. I'm not saying we shouldn't consider changes to how we make decisions, just that if/when we do so we should do so for its own sake. The problem isn't with "voting" because, as mentioned repeatedly, we've taken a wide sample of the community and found overwhelming support for the changes. Given the margin of support, choosing other approaches to counting up the size of that margin are unlikely to alter the ordering of "for > against". Given the margin of support, the only thing which could invert that ordering is if we took specific individuals (e.g., those who've publicly "resigned") and considered them to be dictators. Thus, unless the actual proposal is to make those individuals dictators, their opposition is insufficient to counter the support from the rest of the community. No matter how much we dislike the outcomes we got, changing the process of decision making wouldn't've allowed us to avoid those outcomes (again, unless we decided to make certain specific individuals into dictators). The real problem is the growing divide in the community between the "liberals" vs the "conservatives". We could define these groups as those who're willing to break things vs want more stability, or as those who embrace polymorphism vs those who want to minimize mental type inference, or a few other ways I'm sure. How exactly we define the groups doesn't much matter imo; the point is: there are two groups which are growing ever more divergent from one another. Changing how we make decisions isn't going to reconcile these two groups; so long as the groups are widely divergent, any decisions made will upset one or the other. So the real issue at hand is to address the following two questions: (1) how can we reconcile the two groups, reducing the distance between them so as to reduce conflict? (2) supposing the groups cannot be (sufficiently) reconciled, how do we proceed? -- Live well, ~wren