"everybody who should upvote to embrace a new idea, is just not voting at all."

So you are the official judge of what should be voted on and how!!? You might stop and consider that maybe, just maybe, the non-voters don't think much of the proposal. I know, what a shocker! Some people have the audacity to have different opinions. We can't have that. Maybe you should ask for an auto-correcting voting feature.

I didn't mean to offend you personally in any way. And I did not promoted myself to be an official judge. And I agree, yes, people have different opinions and I grant that to everyone - including me.

As for the interpretation of the votings: How would you call it, if the voting result shows negative and no upvotes? How is this helpful inside an Incubator which is intended to "incubate" things? There should be at least "some" encouragement to create something new, even if those who read the post are not "convinced" yet. So, I conclude there are more than 2 users here, therefore a -2 cannot be the endresult of everybody. Therefore the majority of users is not voting, which is not helpful.

I don't understand what you mean or the intention is behind a "auto-correcting voting feature". Could you explain that in a sentence or two, please?

I take the negative votes to mean those users think the proposal is flawed. They believe (I presume) that the proposal in its current form would not be a benefit to Codidact, or that it would be a significantly higher benefit if fixed.

Unfortunately, the site proposal mechanism doesn't allow for easy debate on the points. It is possible, but rather cumbersome because you have to post in the meta category. It's then not clear when consensus for a change is reached, who decides that, and who/when should edit the original proposal accordingly. As a result, it's easier to just downvote a proposal that needs lots of work and move on. If that's what's going on, then the message of the downvotes is "needs too much work to bother engaging, shouldn't see the light of day as is".

Yeah, I figured it would be something like this. Bravo.... how disillusioning. (Not against you, thanks for the reply)

I just went to check the latest site proposals and was reminded that there is no voting on proposals. Users can endorse them at different levels, but can't up or down vote proposals. I had forgotten about that and took it at face value that your proposals were getting downvoted when I wrote my previous comment.

Now I don't understand what you are actually talking about. Your proposals have not been downvoted. Only those users who thought the proposals were good endorsed them. You can't really say why everyone else didn't. They might not be personally interested in the topic, think that it's not a good fit for the site or the Q&A format in general, think the proposal is too flawed to bother engaging, or something else.

Personally, I think your proposals don't fit the Q&A format well and will result in a low signal to noise ratio. Fixing them would require too much change to bother debating the issue. Ignore and move on.

I am talking about the posts in the Incubator Q&A (questions as well as answers). Not the proposals.

And I am talking about that there is no community yet that could support my claims about the rules being true. So I have no chance of bringing something to light, if I have to fight against the community of the many/few who are reading Meta+Proposals. And probably think about such a community as you did with a signal to noise ratio. That is borderline insultingly downplaying a genuine attempt of establishing a community.

But yeah, I guess you are right. Don't bother and move on.

As for the interpretation of the votings: How would you call it, if the voting result shows negative and no upvotes? How is this helpful inside an Incubator which is intended to "incubate" things?

Unfortunately, not everything turns out to be a good suggestion or addition to the library. That's just the way it is, and downvotes are a signal of that. A downvote does remain the opinion of only one person, though, so they may be mistaken in the end.

Not everyone is going to vote, and that's fair. I often don't vote if I haven't spent time and resources properly understanding what I'm voting for. I also don't vote if I don't think what I'm looking at is so good it deserves an upvote, but neither bad enough to deserve a downvote. That's fair, too.

"posts in the Incubator Q&A (questions as well as answers). Not the proposals."

In that case, people are voting on the specific posts, not passing judgement on the overall site proposal. Questions in the Q&A category of the proposals site are intended to be examples showing both desirable and undesirable questions for the proposed site. The most obvious reason for downvoting is that the user feels the question is NOT the kind that should be allowed on the proposed site. Other reasons for downvotes include that the post is poorly written or formatted.