Bylaws revision: Clarity on proposals

I agree that I'm not sure that the actual procedure is right, but this proposal is merely an attempt to clarify the meaning of the existing language. While the percentage might be more familiar, we ended up agreeing that using proportions would be a clearer way to express how to translate the Loomio data into relevant outcomes.

Given that Loomio shows votes in whole numbers and only percentages for participation multiplier language requires less calculation on part of the voter and it is clear now once a proposal has reached a pass threshold whether a block is employed or not. If this section was ratified ever again we could push for a numerical comment like (3X) or ration (3:1) next to "3 times" to further clarify the formula.

Well, my issue is that there is an unintended change on the procedure. (A percentage change from 95% to ~90%) I understand that this is an effort to bring concise and clear language to the Bylaws and since I was not able to put this issue during drafting I will put it now as a comment and let others decide. (If I hadn't abstained I would have blocked on this)

By and large the percentages are unchanged. A 90% (9X/ 9:1) was and still is the threshold/margin for proposal that doesn't amend the bylaws to pass where a block is employed.

Yeah the 95% threashold isn't possible in most whole number vote scenarios. It could have been represented as a 19:1 margin instead but in future ratifications it should be reduced to some whole number multiple.

There is also nominal percentage increase to pass a proposal with no Block from 50% (which is a tie) to +1 Agree to Disagree.

In my opinion, the actual issue lies not in the presence of percentages in the rules, but by the lack of percentages where the actual results are shown - on the pie chart.
On the below example, Agree should have 92% printed next to it, Abstain - 8%, the remaining two - 0%.
For me, percentages are much easier to read than the "times" ratios, and I would greatly enjoy having them on the pie chart as well, in order not to do multiplication in my head. But, both of these sound readable to me, and not everyone needs to be as mathematically-inclined as I am with the percents, so I can't generalize that everyone likes percentages as much as I do. At the same time, I assume that this would mean a request for Loomio to implement this functionality in their voting system, so, something we cannot control.

I agree with you, but unfortunately that's Loomio and we can't control it. I think, given the limitations of the software, it's better not to use percentages so the Loomio numbers don't wind up confusing people.

This would be a great thing to post to the Loomio Community - Product Development Loomio group as a suggested feature addition...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It seems that percentages will be added soon!

So this is great and will help on the percentage side but the old language was also vague on Blocks and and for how Abstain votes are counted. Would you be open to re-visiting as part of a deeper procedural dive forthcoming in the Governance Working group?

Sure - what exactly do you mean by "re-visiting"?