This is where I waffle. On one hand, I see what billytea and amych are saying. But it seems to me that some of the discontent expressed by people was that we are changing too fast and losing something in the process.

---

I used to be part of a cooperative theatre company. It was the administrative crap and the meetings that killed it. (Oh, and money) Having to deal with the grinding issues, and dealing with the personal hurts that came out of those conflicts took away from the joy of creating. And it was the "Where are we going?" question that caused the worst kind of personal conflicts. I'm getting deja vu , and it's starting to freak me out.

So, this bureaucracy is making me antsy. I want bring forward that I don't like the idea of a separate debate thread or a separate decree thread. I think we have two threads right now (bureaucracy and Press) which serve similart purposes, that would suit the decision making process we are contemplating. Are we really expecting to have to use this process that often? (God, I hope not. )

And is there any consideration for what happens if there is immediate consensus on something. Does it still need to be put through the decision making wringer?

That said, if we go down this road:

I think there needs to be a quorum. If only 20 people are debating and voting on an issue, than why is it being discussed?

I think that debate needs to be imprersonal. Maybe we need to set the style of debate we will allow. Is it crazy to ask for a debate forum where people present their views and their arguments why first, without jumping in and picking apart individual arguments until everyone has had there say. I just don't like to see debates get personal when they don't have to.

---

Just wanted to say that even if I'm not actively posting here, I am reading the discussion, as work allows.

---

Sue:

I am having the same sort of theatre dejo vu, but I am hoping this will help make that go away.

I think the "Decree" thread isnt a thread.

I think it is a page that just lists decisions and dates, so people will know whether or they can bring them up again.

---

My (not fully formed) gut feelings on majorities --

• The problems voiced with our decision-making so far seem to be more along the lines of "early voices in a discussion get lost" than "not enough people support this at all".

• Every time we've decided things by poll, it's been by simple majority. And I don't remember us ever having a result anywhere close to 2/3. And I don't remember any calls for supermajority until now.

• I'll admit (at risk of sounding Ugly American -- I know that ours isn't the only way, it's just the one I know) that my gut feelings on votes and the like are informed on a deep level by the US political system. And the

only things our system demands that high a majority for are impeachments and constitutional amendments. And that was done deliberately to make it damned hard to change certain things. I don't think that's the kind of barrier to change we need here. Yes, people feel that things have been changing fast, but I see that as a problem of adjusting to a lot of growth, not of needing to clamp down and say "we need to set things up so it's damned near impossible for anything to change."

---

If only 20 people are debating and voting on an issue, than why is it being discussed?

Some people really aren't interested in bureaucratic issues, though. Others might think "Yeah, what she said" and not feel it's worth posting without something more unique to say. And then there are lurkers, who might vote but not post an opinion beforehand.

I agree there should have to be a fairly large number of votes (I'd say 50 or 75) to do anything, but as far as discussion goes, I don't think you can judge the opinions of people who don't post. All you can say is that they aren't posting. Which is not to say we need to vote on every one-man war that comes down the pike -- but I think that if even five people are posting enthusiastically about something, it's an indicator many more people than that care.

Edit: Oh, and I'd like to start at 60% needed for a decision, subject to change if it turns out to be too hard or easy to meet.

---

Every time we've decided things by poll, it's been by simple majority. And I don't remember us ever having a result anywhere close to 2/3. And I don't remember any calls for supermajority until now.

Isn't that because we were voting from a choice of more that two, like thread names? I think, in that situation, a clear plurality is fine.

---

If 20 posters hash out a discussion and vote, why shouldn't it count? If I can't be arsed to come over and be #21 to say "this is a really dumb idea, I vote no", then I don't see why their decision is invalid.

If you take vacation or time off the board, you miss stuff. I'm in favour of a week of discussion, a week of voting, no overlap. Just so things end.

The problem with doing all this in bureaucracy is that 17 things might be going on here. Anti-proliferation as I am, I do support one new thread, for discussion and having results posted there and in Press once the vote is complete.

---

All this pseudo-political, bureaucratic discussion is really difficult to follow since everyone has their own opinions and suggestions.

I agree with Sue that if we aren't careful, we're going to suck the fun right out of this place. I guess since our raison d'etre is up in the air, we have to have something to talk about, however, since I work in a Bureaucracy, I don't want to play in one too.

I'll go with whatever people decide, unless you decide to ban all Canadians, which I come down solidly against.

Have fun.

---

Should lurkers get votes?

---