MP, I don’t know! I could have been clearer on that, what I meant to say was: … because TO ME Sean’s proposal came as a direct reaction to you creating a group. You created the first group (top level) and short after Sean created this proposal. That was what I observed and that was my impression.
Sean, if we’re going to regard a “block” as a “no”, then we should be able to either A) remove the Block button, or B) make sure that people know that those two votes are equivalent.
I prefer simple majority rule, too.
If we hover over “state your position” we can see that “block” in Loomio means “I block, I have strong objections to this motion and I’m not ok with it going ahead”.
@Brent: Who decides that a “block” is a “no” vote?
And why is that discussed after I decided to use the “block” vote?
@Altruism: I read the hover, and I do have strong objections to this motion moving ahead. I think we need more people in the mix before deciding to get autocratic about the process of starting a new group with the software.
MP: I actually brought this up before you voted. I was talking about Jason Robinson’s block (which he changed to a “yes”).
It would be very interesting if we create the proposal “Block should mean the same as No” and the have one or more voting to block it 
Brent, MP’s question is still a relevant one.
@Atruism, I think I would block that vote, were it to occur.
Still there is nothing that prevents people from doing whatever they want despite what any pie chart says. The folks here is certainly not representative of the entire D* community.
Still I think it’s interesting that Sean was cordial to address Jason’s block and discuss it and he persuaded (I guess) Jason to change his vote. Isn’t that what’s supposed to happen?
But in the chronology of events, this has come up after I began a new group, (and I only started one new group not a FLOOD of them) and that seems to be an issue. I’d like to know the count of who has started groups here? Would it be OK if I propose that in governance? 
Then, I block a vote and now that block is being dismissed away, after I made it.
Is it a coincidence? I don’t know. May be not!
Are we also going to decide to vote on whether members may starting a new discussion too? Or a new proposal too?
Hey it’s OK. I’m just asking before I do something else that is evidently against the current here.
MP: It’s nothing against you (or Jason, for that matter). The reason why I asked is because I hadn’t seen a block used before. It seems to me that how we handle blocks is very important, because the potential for abuse is there.
However, this is is off topic, so further discussion should go into a thread dedicated to this topic.
Brent, please feel free starting a new discussion on the “Governance Proposals” group. Or should we vote first?
altruism: I think we should vote on whether or not to vote.
Yeah, you have a point Brent, consensus without voting is one alternative.
I think in Roberts Rules of Parliament, I may be wrong, someone moves to propose a vote, someone seconds it and then people vote to vote. and if there is a majority that agrees to move to vote, then people vote.
I think this is to measure the building of consensus. When there is a perceived consensus, it makes sense to move to vote. But the idea is to allow the issue air for discussion.
But do we really have to do that? I mean if everyone feels that kind of formality is required, I’ll go with it, but it seems more about censorship than allowing discussion in this case.
Certainly, people could abuse that too (and they do, look at the Republicans in the US). Shouldn’t minority voices be protected? I’m just asking (not just because I am one in this instance, but because it seems not a really nice thing, since at one point any one of us will be in the minority, and no one should be dismissed because of that.)
altruism: I was actually making a joke.
Brent, I thought so, but I’m not. You do have a point.
@Brent: At first I thought you were joking, but that is actually what is done on RROP, when I considered it (after I stopped laughing of course!) 
I think only one thing : We have a lot of things to do which are really more important than this discussion.
Please guys, lets it like it is, if someone create a group which is a duplicate or totally useless, we will say to him, and if he doesn’t agree that his group is useless, then, we can vote if we create the group or not.
Else, it’s only a waste of time.
Flaburgan, you my man, totally agree.
So do we also raise a vote if we should allow someone to speak? That is how I am interpreting this proposal. It is censorship.