I fell down and got confused. Willow fixed me. She's gay.

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


Katie M - Feb 24, 2003 12:12:41 pm PST #5170 of 10001
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies

Which makes it more redundant with the regular discussion thread. I dunno. I think one thread for discussions and positioning is enough.

I agree.


Lyra Jane - Feb 24, 2003 12:13:04 pm PST #5171 of 10001
Up with the sun

I think one thread for discussions and positioning is enough.

Agreed. The idea of bureaucracy + Supreme Court + State Your Position + Polling + So Mote it Be at the end kind of makes my head spin.


Sophia Brooks - Feb 24, 2003 12:15:49 pm PST #5172 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

I think that is too much.

However, I do agree it can be confusing, which is why I was periodically posting a summary of the discussion as I understood it at WX.

I can't always do this, like today I am at work. I do think it is a good formula.


billytea - Feb 24, 2003 12:18:54 pm PST #5173 of 10001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

Okay, why can't we require people to vote? Where are the Australians? If you don't vote, you can't post! Or your membership is made inactive!

The Aussie system doesn't involve getting booted off the island. Anyone who didn't vote would have to put a dollar in the pot, which would certainly help with site funding. However, it would also leave voting optional for anyone claiming a religious exemption, of anyone not resident in Australia, so really it'd just be Angus and John and such that'd be out of pocket.


Wolfram - Feb 24, 2003 12:27:02 pm PST #5174 of 10001
Visilurking

I can say that I would never post in a thread that only allowed me to have one position at a time.

And this is why we have so much confusion. Get 3 Buffistas in a room and you invariably get 5 opinions. No offense Jesse, but one position at a time would make things clearer.

Edited to add: Doh! Now that you were COMMed I realize you were kidding. But the point is still valid.


Katie M - Feb 24, 2003 12:29:38 pm PST #5175 of 10001
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies

And this is why we have so much confusion. Get 3 Buffistas in a room and you invariably get 5 opinions. No offense Jesse, but one position at a time would make things clearer.

For me, the point of discussion is much more for the people discussing to have a chance to see other points of view and thus refine their own than it is for us to all present our opinions to be evaluated by a larger public. Are you envisioning something more like the latter?


Jon B. - Feb 24, 2003 12:29:46 pm PST #5176 of 10001
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!

No offense Jesse, but one position at a time would make things clearer.

Clarity comes with the voting. I've no beef with multiple opinions.

t edit and what Katie said.


brenda m - Feb 24, 2003 12:32:08 pm PST #5177 of 10001
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

I just don't see the point of it. If I'm uncertain of an issue, it's the back and forth discussion that I want to see and react to, not a line up of individual platforms. I'm trying to suss out my own conclusions on an issue, not decide whose side I want to be on. And if we're discussing in one thread and running back and forth to "revise and amend" in another, the pain in the ass factor shoots way up.


Typo Boy - Feb 24, 2003 12:33:15 pm PST #5178 of 10001
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.

So - my view so far:

Yes to voting.

Yes to simple majority.

Yes to small quorum. (If you can't get ten people interested enough to vote on your proposal , you don't have enough support. Even if all the no's abstain so as to stop your proposal - hey you ought to be able to get ten people to vote *for* it.) But it should be a small quorum. Actually this is the equivalent of requiring nine "seconds".

I would say 3 business days to discuss. And 3 business days to vote. No overlaps. Or maybe 4 to allow for time differences. And why not allow discussion during voting period?

Yes to a "So Mote it Be" page that lists settled issues. And I vote that the time period for which it is settled be six months not a year.

No to Roberts Rules of Order. Mind you, I want formal procedures - just not that friggin many formal procedures. Having a voting procedure, including a quorum/nine concurrences rule, a debate period and close of debate is formal enough. We don't need to start having points of order and such. (And I long ago determined that I would never be a "chair" in any organization, If I have to be a piece of furniture, I'm the comfy sofa. )


askye - Feb 24, 2003 12:33:58 pm PST #5179 of 10001
Thrive to spite them

I don't like the idea of being limited to one opinion or one view point for the reasons mentioned above, what happens when you read others view points and change your mind or maybe need to clarify your opinion.