They have to actually *propose* the creation of the thread (or threads), though. A person can't just list threads they'd like to see, and wait for the stompies to create them.

Somebody has now, yes. There's also been about 2 or 3 proposals for bucket threads. The problem is it's still in the discussion phases, so telling people they must propose creation right now doesn't work, I think, because there's no voting actually happening on anything.

I think voting isn't dumb, especially with the factions at play. If the proposal is changed from consensus to vote, I would second it.

If we're still talking about this, and not going for the vote yet, I'd like a definition of "splintering the community". No, seriously. There are people who post in Natter but not Bitches, and vice versa, there are people who post in only one forum, people who avoid certain threads like Boxed Set. I'd never have met deb grabien if I hadn't joined Great Write on a whim. I've been hanging here for years and I read practically every post in Natter, Bitches, Boxed Set, and Minearverse, and there are surely people on this board I've never met or rarely see. If the community is everyone who posts on the Phoenix Board, we're already splintered. Seems like what we're trying to do is create "safer spaces" for people to un-splinter, to come back together in conversation. Obviously people should post where they please, but if people are avoiding threads that contain conversations they're interested in, that sounds like splintering to me. I'd love to talk Dresden Files with more people, but they're avoiding Boxed Set because of BSG or Dr. Who or whatever. If the creation of more threads allows more people to join in conversations they've been missing and wanting, that's bringing people together, not splintering.

And while cross-pollination is surely a good thing, the opposite also exists: I've lost interest in watching BSG and Supernatural because I feel drowned in them. Not to say those who love them shouldn't squee in my space! I'm not trying to harsh anyone's joy, at all. I'm just the opposite of people who avoid the conversation because of spoilers; I risk the spoilers; but being spoiled and being inundated are different, somehow. And I did notice that there was more talk about Dresden Files and Blood Ties this week, when BSG didn't come on right after.

The post I wrote at work was better. Sorry.

I like discovery threads that are clearly marked as temporary.

And, um, this.

I don't see how we can concense on not voting without voting on that. It's bureaucracy, but it's our bureaucracy.

I would also second Cindy's proposal if it was for voting. I don't see the harm in going through the process-- creating temp threads seems voteable.

Aurelia, I really want to post that in COMM, but it won't be funny unless you've been reading the last two hundred posts. And it's so tragically funny! And true!

I don't see how we can concense on not voting without voting on that. It's bureaucracy, but it's our bureaucracy.

Heh. Yes, this.

As much as I'm a fan of the bullshit consensus, we put the proposal/voting procedures in place for a reason, and like it or not, we should use them.

PROPOSAL to be forth for a Vote:

I propose we study our TV habits to see what else we like to post about, besides the stuff we already post about. To that end, I propose we open one or more temporary threads for discovery. White font policy and number/category of temporary threads will be determined after discussion in Lightbulbs. These temporary threads would shut down on June 1, 2007, and we'll come back to Bureacracy at that time, to suss out what works and what doesn't.

(Needs 4 seconds)

I imagine this is what a day at the UN is like.

but it won't be funny unless you've been reading the last two hundred posts.

Or the last two-almost-three threads. I agree with the sentiment and the comm!