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.

aurelia, I went on the same quest, and couldn't find it, yesterday. We're tilting at cheesebutts.

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."

I see you've withdrawn, but so you don't lie awake nights, wondering...it wouldn't have helped me accept or support it, Sean. It's still adding on yet some more process--which is the source of my objection. I understand that's the point--to slow us down, but maybe we have slowed, anyhow. A lot of shows got some support in Lyra's pre-proposal poll last year. The one that's the focus of the current discussion in Lightbulb was tied for second or third with a handful of them. It's the only one that's come up, since. It's the only one for which I've noticed the interest, viewership, and devotion grow, and read the kind of comments I do read about it.