Post History

I don't understand those voting patterns either.  Because people vote for all sorts of reasons, ranging from "I enthusiastically support this" to "that sounds reasonable to me (but I wouldn't participate" to "I think there are serious flaws" to "I am opposed to any site about X regardless of the merits of this proposal", we can't draw many conclusions from votes on the proposals themselves.  

In the beginning we read too much signal into proposal votes.  This is why we now ask people to indicate their actual interest in being part of the community (and whether they're enthusiastic or more casual).  We care much more about answers with concrete proposals or arguments against, and the voting on them, than votes on the proposal itself.  If we see a bunch of enthusiastic would-be participants and low or negative voting on the proposal we'll ask about that, but this hasn't happened yet I don't think.

If someone objects to some aspect of a proposal, we'd like to see an answer explaining the issues.  We can evaluate the content of an answer; we can't read the tea leaves of proposal votes.