Overall AGM plan here
Members are invited to stand on points of order should they believe something went wrong during phase 2. The speaker shall propose a resolution that members can vote on. This phase shall end 48 hours after time of opening. (2026-08-20 01:00 UTC)
Now that motions have been tabled and voted on, it has come to my attention that some motions received perhaps one or two votes. It was the assumption of the speaker that a given motion would be implicitly voted YEA by the member tabling, however I did not make that clear. Furthermore, I did not make clear that in the result of a tie, the status quo would remain (motion defeated).
My friends in content, do you accept that motions tabled as part of phase 2 should be assumed to have an implicit YEA vote cast by their tabler? (YEA/NAY IMPLICIT)
My friends in content, do you accept that in the event of a tie, the status quo shall dominate and the motions will be considered as failed? (YEA/NAY TIE)
Putting my money where my mouth is
YEA IMPLICIT
YEA TIE
ACK YEA IMPLICIT
ACK YEA TIE
NAY IMPLICIT NAY TIE
ACK NAY IMPLICIT
ACK NAY TIE
I think that the default should be to change something in the event of a tie. This status quo business is what the British parliament does, and I’m worried we might end up like them.
ACK NAY TIE
I think that instead of yae nae, the arrowclicks should be counted
The speaker finds this out-of-order as the procedure for voting has already been agreed upon.
Doesn’t the number of arrowclicks depend on one’s relative position in this fediverse?
how do you mean?
There is no privileged frame of reference, whether the arrows point up or down, or are red or blue depends on your relative velocity and orientation.
The number you see may be different for two accounts on two different servers, right?
Is that how it works? Japanese Jesus, this protocol is cursed.
Cursed or just natural consequence of federation? Probably both.