Okay, back from work.

The reason I suggest requiring a waiting period some time into a second season is not just to have rules for rules sake, but to avoid having these one season show bastards. It feels to me like everything new and shiny, people want to make into a new thread, but that for a lot of those, the shiny wears off, even before the first season is over. Discussion on The OC seemed to really peter off when the second season rolled around, and by the end, most of the initial viewers seemed to think it less shiny (but that's an outsider/lurker's impression, that could be very wrong).

Really, I'm just trying to find a compromise between proliferation, and creating a new thread for every new shiny lying by the side of the road. I think the suggestion is just asking for some proof of legs on a discussion before having it break off into a new thread.

Also, lest Eddie (I think it was...?) get the wrong impression, I'm not suggesting that just because a discussion has legs, that it automatically get its own thread. I'm also not married to the "2x10" threshold either, if that particular part of the proposal is causing it to sound more rules-for-rules sake.

I don't know, it's just a suggestion, not an issue or something. I'm trying to please all the people all the time. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a discussion prove itself beyond just one season and a summer before handing it a thread of its own.

Anyway, so far I've received one of the four seconds it's going to require to even come up for a vote. Have we ever decided how long you have to collect four seconds? I misforget.

I second. And disagree for reasons I'm happy to share in lightbulb if it gets to that.

I can't even second. It's too rule-sy for me, and I fear the Burrell principle enough on this one. It's the type of proposal I see a bunch of people voting for, even though they personally don't want it, trying to make other people happy, and we'll regret it, later, particularly as we have a 6 month moratorium on things we vote on/in.

Without digging up examples, I think the Burrell rule has been sufficiently disproved. Further, by that logic, every proposal would get the requisite number of seconds. I think Sean's proposal is worth discussing if only as a way of taking the temperature of board sentiment on pro and anti, um, liferation, rather than having it peek in and out of every thread proposal discussion.

I'm agin it.

Don't we have to let the current Lightbulb discussion go to vote first before we second anything to discussion though?

Anyway, I think Jesse covered my objection pretty well.

Don't we have to let the current Lightbulb discussion go to vote first before we second anything to discussion though?

I also asked this question earlier, and got no response. I will happily repropose once the current lightbulbs discussion is over, if that's necessary.

It's too rule-sy for me

Would it at all help if I simplified it to "Require some proof (standard to be determined during discussion) that a show discussion has legs beyond its first season before allowing it to be granted a thread of its own."

Edit: found the reference I was seeking.

Don't we have to let the current Lightbulb discussion go to vote first before we second anything to discussion though?

I'm pretty sure a queue for discussions has happened before which would indicate that we can second new proposals during a current LB discussion.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I believe there is a one vote on the table at a time policy. (okay, so maybe I'll look after I post this)

I think the suggestion is just asking for some proof of legs on a discussion before having it break off into a new thread.

I thought that the proposal-discussion-vote process already served that purpose.

Would it at all help if I simplified it to "Require some proof (standard to be determined during discussion) that a show discussion has legs beyond its first season before allowing it to be granted a thread of its own."

Ah. Well... I wish I could ask for proof of endurance before accepting a date but that's been wishful thinking so far.

But shouldn't we really vote on what and how we want to vote on what and how we want to vote on before we continue voting on what and how we want to vote on?

Yeah, okay. I'll withdraw.

I looked. I failed. I think I'm looking for the mythical document that hasn't yet been completed.