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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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-.

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"?

I feel like that, too Cindy. I think that is the source of much unhappiness. I was trying to make a fair and unbiased list of what we are thinking of.