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
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?
Should lurkers get votes?
I don't see why not -- anyone registered should be eligible.
having results posted there and in Press once the vote is complete.
I'd like to also see a web page listing closed decisions, because people might not think to go back several months in Press to see if their proposal has been discussed already.
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.
I really like the idea of having a discussion thread separate from Bureaucracy so that other bureaucratic issues don't get lost in the of the Big Debate Du Semaine (or should that be "de la"?).
For additional clarity, we could change the thread slug to reflect whatever it is we're discussing at the moment.
I really like the idea of having a discussion thread separate from Bureaucracy so that other bureaucratic issues don't get lost in the of the Big Debate Du Semaine (or should that be "de la"?).
De la. And I think I agree with this, but I also worry that things are getting a bit over-bureaucratized, but I'm not entirely sure that something less formal would neccesarily be a better idea.
