I put my draft on <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy>, comments on the talk page, and reproduce it below.

It shouldn't have anything new in it that wasn't already mentioned before.

Feel free to edit on Meta or write your opinions here.

{{draft}}

The Language Committee, with the approval of the Board, decided to change its rules for decision-making. So far, every decision required "consensus", defined as "no objections".
* Decisions of the Language Committee will continue to be made on the mailing list and the committee will continue to try to achieve consensus for them. If there has been no objection to a proposed decision one week (two weeks for policy changes?) after the proposal was made, it is so decided.
* When there is an objection to a proposed decision, any member may call for a vote. A vote must then be held, but it should only start after the question was discussed thoroughly.
* A vote will last for one week (two weeks for policy changes?). A vote starts when a member sends a mail with the exact question to the list. The subject of all the mails must include [VOTE] so that every member can easily filter and notice such important mails.
* The following majorities of participating members are needed for a decision to be adopted by vote:
**Simple majority
***[[Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_eligibility|Eligibility]] of projects in languages that have a valid ISO 639-3 code
***Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code.
***Final approval
**2/3 majority
***Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the [[Language proposal policy]] and [[Closing projects policy]].

Some special provisions:
* The procedures according to the [[closing projects policy]] are unchanged.
* Full consensus is still required for accepting new members. Like all personal issues, they will be discussed on the non-public mailing list.
* Any committee member can mark clearly eligible [[requests for new languages]] as eligible. Requirements are: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues with regard to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant.
** If a request turns out to be contentious, the commitee can remove the eligibility status again.
* It is not possible to vote on approving a project which doesn't meet the [[Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_final_approval|requisites for final approval]].

==Comments==
:''(two weeks for policy changes?)''
Yay or nay?

:''When there is an objection to a proposed decision, any member may call for a vote. A vote must then be held, but it should only start after the question was discussed thoroughly.''
I added this to prevent a voting is started immediately after someone says something against an idea/proposal. Because of the current system, discussions pretty much stop at that point, but under the new system, it would be good if they went on first before everyone has to take a side.

:''The subject of all the mails must include [VOTE] so that every member can easily filter and notice such important mails.''
This was requested in Berlin.

2017-05-18 9:00 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org>:

Hi again,

that really makes me sad. We had really good rapport and momentum when we met in Berlin, and I would've thought that we'd be able to transfer that to our online communication. Is there still hope to mend what happened yesterday? (Now my troubles no longer seem so far away ...)

Yours for the under-represented language communities of our planet,
Oliver

On 18-May-17 07:52, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
No as far as I am concerned the conversation has soured. I prefer for us to take stock and not rush on.

Thanks,

GerardM

On 17 May 2017 at 23:08, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

We could do that. MF-Warburg could put the proposal on wiki, so we
could discuss and comment there, as well. (But, we'll make the final
decision and final changes, if necessary, here. So, Gerard, don't
worry if you prefer to talk just on list.)

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org> wrote:
> Thanks to both of you, Milos and MF-Warburg, for providing the text.
>
> I was simply thinking that discussing a text with comments in an online
> document would be much less cumbersome than doing so in an email list with
> stacked responses. But whatever you prefer ...
>
>
>
> On 17-May-17 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which
>>> includes these details. I can send it in a few hours.
>>
>> Thank you very much! :)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Virus-free. www.avg.com

_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom