Say! look at you! You look just like me! We're very pretty.

Buffybot ,'Dirty Girls'


Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier  

A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.

Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych


Anne W. - Feb 24, 2003 8:13:59 am PST #5041 of 10001
The lost sheep grow teeth, forsake their lambs, and lie with the lions.

I'd like to see it a bit more moderated/stomped than the other threads, if not as much so as Press and Beep Me

Agreed. I also think that the thread should be kept closed unless there is something up for discussion.


Sophia Brooks - Feb 24, 2003 8:14:52 am PST #5042 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

Sophia, I think we have to agree on the idea of a Supreme Court and debate thread first.

True, true.

So the options are:

1) Keep decision making the same, by trying to get consensus

2) Vote on things proposed in Bureacracy

3) Vote on things proposed in Bureacracy, but discussed in another thread created for that purpose.

Are these the only options?

My actual point was that someone might propose something, we talk about it, and end up with a differant idea. I think we should be open to it.


DXMachina - Feb 24, 2003 8:15:31 am PST #5043 of 10001
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.

I think the admins can get a report of addresses, but only for people with their addresses in their profile, maybe? DX? ita?

The admins can see all the e-mail addresses, hidden or not.


Cindy - Feb 24, 2003 8:15:48 am PST #5044 of 10001
Nobody

Proposal - the Supreme Court thread (which I think I liked but disremember) is probably something that needs more discussion. I'd like to see us set that aside for now. Let's get a simple decision making model in place, first. Then discuss and decide on the Supreme Court thread. I think it has enough formality to it that some people will oppose it and we might get so bogged down, that we'll never even be able to decide on a thread name again.


Jessica - Feb 24, 2003 8:16:11 am PST #5045 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset

A variation on DX's idea that would be easier to tally -- create two email addresses, voteyes@buffistas.org and voteno@buffistas.org. We only vote on one issue at a time. That way, all Jesse has to do is look at how many new messages are in each box (deleting duplicates, if necessary).


Sophia Brooks - Feb 24, 2003 8:19:11 am PST #5046 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

OK-- so we are deciding

To vote or not to vote?

And how? (I actually think that we can't discuss how without discussing a separate thread).


§ ita § - Feb 24, 2003 8:19:11 am PST #5047 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

You could include two e-mail links in the proposal, one for yay, and one for nay, and set up the links so they automatically fill in the subject line.

That doesn't work for all browser/e-mail clients, FWIW (especially people with web-based e-mail). Also, 48 hours lets things get lost on a weekend.

Polls will be implemented. An e-mail form can be implemented. But I think the effort to send an e-mail is little enough that those who care, can do it.


§ ita § - Feb 24, 2003 8:19:13 am PST #5048 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Cindy - Feb 24, 2003 8:19:54 am PST #5049 of 10001
Nobody

1) Keep decision making the same, by trying to get consensus

Sometimes I feel like we don't get consensus so much as we decide which ever group spoke last, gets to make the decision. Usually this only occurs to me when an idea I've liked has been shot down, so I've never mentioned it, because I thought it might just be sour grapes on my part. However there have been a few times that an idea has gotten support early on, then the anti-idea people have spoken, and we just assume there were more anti- than pro-.


Lyra Jane - Feb 24, 2003 8:20:34 am PST #5050 of 10001
Up with the sun

I also think that the thread should be kept closed unless there is something up for discussion.

So is the proposal:

1. Someone suggests in bureaucracy that we add a CONNOR IS HOTT thread.

2. Stompy unlocks Supreme Court thread to discuss adding CONNOR IS HOTT.

3. Discussion of pros and cons, for a certain period of time (say, one week). Posts about adding GUNN IS HOTT or CONNOR SUX threads are considered off-topic.

4. Voting through votes@buffistas.org, for 48 hours (or two business days, if discussin ends on a weekend.)

5. Decision is posted on "So mote it be" page or thread.

6. Discussion of adding a thread about Connor's hotness or lack thereof is considered closed for six months to a year.

7. Supreme Court thread is relocked until the next week, when someone proposes a GUNN IS HOTT thread.

(I just want to make sure I didn't miss any steps.)

What's the advantage of discussing policy changes through a supreme Court thread rather than keeping them in bureaucracy, but adding a time limit, email voting, and "so mote it be"?