Once June 1 hits, I fully expect that keeping the Non-fic thread as is will be up for discussion pretty much immediately. It does seem to be churning along quite well. Given that, if it's re-proposed after June 1, I think we can handle relocating the discussion to Natter for a week.

This is just an opinion, but I would really not like to see a straight up "all four threads as is" proposal. At the very least, I'd like everyone to have the opportunity to chime in on their likes and dislikes about the threads individually. And to see if any new ideas are perculating. With non-fic, it feels like we might have hit the solution. With the others, I'd hate to close things out too early or in a way that leaves people feeling unheard. That's sort of how we got here in the first place.

I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing results before June 1 with an eye to having a proposal ready to go shortly thereafter. It might be a little early yet because the 1st is 2 weeks away, but we do have a fair amount of data.

I'm being overcome by letter-of-the-lawness, but honestly--if you wanted to discuss earlier, you shouldn't have voted for what you did.

This is just an opinion, but I would really not like to see a straight up "all four threads as is" proposal. At the very least, I'd like everyone to have the opportunity to chime in on their likes and dislikes about the threads individually. And to see if any new ideas are perculating. With non-fic, it feels like we might have hit the solution. With the others, I'd hate to close things out too early or in a way that leaves people feeling unheard. That's sort of how we got here in the first place.

I concur.

I understand that, but it's a shame that it didn't come up (please, this is not a jab) during the discussion of the proposal.

Gotcha. I didn't see the times that the new season start before I voted.

are there actually expected to be any new developments that will change the opinions that have evolved thus far?

Yes, many seasons will have been over for a week or two.

I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing results before June 1 with an eye to having a proposal ready to go shortly thereafter.

No one is disagreeing with that (as best as I can tell). The disagreement is with whether there should be a proposal put forth before June 1. I'm with Cindy & ita. The proposal that created the experimental threads was very clear that they would all close on June 1, and then we would come up with a proposal about what to do next.

I'm mostly reading ita and brenda and nodding.

I'm fine with waiting for June 1st. And for waiting to discuss things until then, at least formally.

I'm not sure the vote will reflect something that's been trialed.

Who said it had to? The experiment was to gather data. Not an explicit prototype.

In fact the proposal as written states that the threads are not meant to be prototypes. However, the reality thread has been a resounding success, and I think something similar should take its place.

Are we going to construe the experiment proposal as written from preventing any kind of discussion, proposal or creation of a reality thread for six months? I hope not.

Are we going to construe the experiment proposal as written from preventing any kind of discussion, proposal or creation of a reality thread for six months?

How can one read it that way?

eta:

Wait, is that in response to me? I meant that you can't not close the existing thread, because that's untouchable via moratorium. New threads are not only not prohibited, but their potential was the point.

A weird combo between the experiment proposal and the moratorium rule.

Mostly just me being paranoid.