Going forward with the Bitcoin protocol is essential for wider adoption ... and ultimately, for the value of your coins.

If you don't understand something about Bitcoin, P2SH, or anything else ... feel free to ask on http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/Stack Exchange - I guarantee you'll get serious answers.

See also What are the implications of BIP 12 vs BIP 16 and OP_CODEHASHCHECK?

I don't spend my whole day on these forums, can you please explain what P2SH is and what this voting is about?

Please don't spread FUD about this.
There are about 60% to 70% of miners who are not voting, excluding DeepBit. According to blockchaininfo's pie chart, currently only 2% of miners are voting forP2SH/.
Of course I won't put my vote against the majority of other miners.

And I'm not "stopping the addition of new good features", I'm just being careful and care about the network. I'll accept any good solution for this problem.
Actually I proposed two-stage upgrade process since there are obviously no consensus between devs or miners, but no one cared to check the issue.

FUD is something like this: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/3889.msg713766#msg713766

I proposed implementation of plain miltisigs and long addresses first, and then working on a better solution for pay-to-script, while already having 2-factor auth and escrow services support.

Yes, I was thinking about this option too. But sadly most of my users don't have a clue about what P2SH is and what's the difference between those competing proposals. And their voting will be affected not by real properties of those solutions, but by PR on this forum.

P.S.: Remember that Deepbit was the first one to vote for OP_EVAL, which later turned out to be exploitable, buggy and not what devs wanted at all. Luckily no harm was done, but lesson learned. Thinking twice now.

Slush and BTCguild are 2 guys holding 40+% of the votes. Not so much of a difference.

I have some different opinion on this matter :)

Why not? I can..

it doesn't matter if you support or don't, what matters is that you vote in the name of all of your miners.
I would expect that you would at least do a poll on your site, or announce on the front page that anyone in tour pool who doesn't support bip16 - should leave , since his hashing power is now used to show support.
but as I explained earlier, I blame the miners for not caring rather than the pool managers.
those are 2 separate issues:
1) agreeing on a "checking multi sig when redeeming a transaction" implementation
2) centralization of Bitcoin that is caused by the miners

I think that your assumption that the pool mangers are necessarily experts in Bitcoin is wrong.
I didnt say you have to mine solo or at p2pool. Another alternative I offered is that the pool managers let their miners vote/discuss it on their site.
Given that the pool managers want to keep all the votes to themselves - exactly for the reason you stated, miners who want to vote should leave.
Your argument fits not only the voting on BIP but for any other vote as well. why let the stupid masses decide the fate of a country? let a smart tyrant do that - he will make much better decisions than the public.
The only ones that should have a veto in this case are the developers - since at the end of this mess- they have to write the code, and if they don't want to do that - you cant force them, you will have to start your own bitcoin fork.
edit;
But if you don't want to vote - you dont have to. you still should be given the option.
There shouldn't be just "for" and "against" but also "i dont know/care"

I believe P2SH is a good thing.  This isn't one of those "republican vs democrat" things where people with different values want different things.  We all want the benefits of P2SH.

P2SH is meant to give average users the means to stop hackers from stealing their bitcoins.

In a nutshell, it allows somebody to choose to have a normal Bitcoin address that requires multiple private keys to spend the funds.  So, for example, any time you receive bitcoins, if you created your Bitcoin address with two private keys (this requires p2sh), they will go onto your normal PC wallet, but requires your PC plus your mobile phone to spend.  Or your PC plus a wallet security service.  For example, that service might send you an SMS and confirm you really want to spend your funds before allowing them to go through.

It is meant to address one of the scariest security concerns with Bitcoin - that anyone who hacks your computer has full control of your bitcoins - a sort of attack that is only going to increase.

There isn't any advantage to NOT supporting this, other than the simple fact that miners will have to agree to it, and that some can be expected to drag their feet for no reason.