It would have been nice to hear some of these suggestions ahead of time. Now there's nothing to do.

I'm curious as to how many people who voted participate in the discussion. If one does not participate in the discussion, there would be no way to know ahead of time what would confuse them about the ballot.

Now there's nothing to do.

Not true. This isn't the Bush Administration. If enough people feel the ballot was confusing there is no reason we can't re-do the ballot and revote. The rules against bring up a topic are to give a cooling off period. If the ballot wasn't clear enough, why not re-do it?

If the ballot wasn't clear enough, why not re-do it?

Because the ballot told people where to address questions.

The process worked the way it was supposed to. AFAIK we've always made allowances for technical glitches. I just don't see justification for a do-over in this case.

We should try to learn from this and encourage future voting proposals to start on ballot wording sooner in the discussion process.

I didn't find it confusing - I just didn't think we needed a new thread. More discussion would not have changed my vote.

FWIW, I didn't find it confusing either.

I found it slightly confusing, but not enough that I feel my vote was miscast. I was mainly confused as why there wasn't a straight out "do you want this thread" question before the spoiler policy questions.

I think the vote probably would have gone as it did however the ballot was worded.

That being said, I do think it's a problem that people come forward after the vote (and this isn't unique to this ballot) to raise concerns, after four days of a near-empty Lightbulbs thread. We seem to have created a situation where people are very reluctant to speak up during the balloting process, and that worries me.

Also, a point of order: The six-month period only applies to the Fall TV/General TV proposals, yes? Not to, e.g., a Bones thread or a Ghost Whisperer thread?

Just personally, it wasn't reluctance on my part, it was that I wasn't heavily invested in this particular issue. I think I posted my one point of confusion in the beginning, and by the time we got to spoilers and how to word the ballot, I ran out of steam for discussion. That kind of thing, to me - the nitty-gritty of wording a ballot - I've got to be really interested in the issue to want to go there. (ETA: Also, I figure I'll be able to figure it out once it's done, and so far, I've been able to.)

I wish I had known there was such a lack of interest because I wouldn't have gone forward.

LeN - I'm sorry you're discouraged. I think, though, that best way we have to gauge interest in something is to go ahead and make the proposal and, if it's sufficiently seconded, have the discussion and vote.* I mean, if you'd asked me how the vote was going to go, I'd have predicted it would pass. So I'm glad you proposed it, becuse the question is settled for the time being, at least. I'm not sure there was a way for you to know ahead of time the relative interest or lack of interest.

*Not that I think every issue needs a vote (or proposal and discussion, for that matter), because, boy howdy, I do not.

We seem to have created a situation where people are very reluctant to speak up during the balloting process, and that worries me.

Because we have the same conversation over and ove, which is why Liese had to ask for the people against thread proliferation to speak up in the previous vote. And because we just had voted a thread into existance a week ago, so if that's the way we are headed as a community, why should I bother to tilt at windmills? I am not reluctant to going on record about thread proliferation, but it seems that there's little point.

Better to just vote against it then to engage in a discussion that pisses me (and maybe others) off.

Because we have the same conversation over and ove

It feels that way from the other side of the fence, too, and I agree that it's frustrating.

I thought engaging in discussions that piss us off was in the mission statement.