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
Is there a perception that it's "broken"?
Not that I've seen. I raise it only as an example-- because we do seem to be discussing how to make all descions (which is a good idea), but I wanted to make the point that there are different kinds: some are protection ('is this poster a troll?'), some are growth ('shall we start the CONNOR IS HOTT thread?'), and other are maintiance ('we need a new natter, what's it called?'). They all need procedures, but not on the same scale.
Edit: in some cases, what we have may well be fine. It's more a 'hey look at the whole picture' thing.
WHAT would we be voting on? And would one poster only wanting something necessitate voting (example: Connor is HOTT Thread) Thread naming seems like it goes along OK as it is.
I would suggest the following:
- Creation of entirely new threads
- Deletion or consolidation of little-used threads
- Changes to board policy
- Suspension of trolls (as an absolute last resort, if at all)
- Changes to the structure of the board itself that would require major financial commitment or time commitment on the part of our techies
Did I miss anything obvious?
What Anne Said, although I'd note that really obvious trolls could be identified by acclamation, without the waiting period.
Leftover steak:
I would suggest that a "Robert's Rules of Order" procedure be used to bring something up for discussion/voting. Let's say that someone suggests a Connor is HOTT! thread. If (arbitrary number) Buffistas say that they'd be interested, the topic moves on to discussion. Then, if after discussion, (arbitrary number) Buffistas are
still
interested in bringing it to a vote, it is brought up for a vote.
That is what I am thinking, too.
Of course, there are, like 7 of us here right now!
Should I post something in Press saying that we are talking?
I would suggest that a "Robert's Rules of Order" procedure be used to bring something up for discussion/voting. Let's say that someone suggests a Connor is HOTT! thread. If (arbitrary number) Buffistas say that they'd be interested, the topic moves on to discussion. Then, if after discussion, (arbitrary number) Buffistas are still interested in bringing it to a vote, it is brought up for a vote.
I like it.
We definitely should not consider anything decided until at least this time tomorrow, to give everyone a chance to weigh in.
If (arbitrary number) Buffistas say that they'd be interested, the topic moves on to discussion. Then, if after discussion, (arbitrary number) Buffistas are still interested in bringing it to a vote, it is brought up for a vote.
I would like to request that the (A.N.) be fairly small (say, 5), and that we always vote even if the conclusion is pretty much foregone. I think to do otherwise leaves us open to the charge that the people who talk loudest and last have made the choice.
For the ignorant among us, who is this Robert, and what are his Rules?
Roberts Rules are how formal commitee meetings are run.
Some on proposes, it is seconded and thirded, then the motion is put up for vote.
