Oz ,'First Date'
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. )
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.
No offense Jesse, but one position at a time would make things clearer.
"What are you doing?"
"Looking for my keys. I dropped them."
[joins search; a few minutes later] "I can't find them. Are you sure you dropped them here?"
"Oh no, I dropped them on that corner."
"So... Why are you looking over here?!?"
"The light's better here."
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. )
gar-- I don't think anyone meant this. this was meant to address the issue of HOW we decide what to voteupon.
So that if I propose the ubiquitous "connor is HOTT" thread, and no one else is interested, we neither discuss nor vote. I think that at least a few buffistas should be interested or we will be voting or discussing all over the place.
And, while I see Schmokers point, I think the extra thread with one post per person per debates is on balance in error. My problem is that the extra thread will tip people who are already reluctant away from participating.
Sophia - OK -well then we are in agreement. I'm for requiring at least ten supporters (accuired informally in natter or bureucracy or via e-mail forwarded to stompy) before something goes into into formal discussion. And I willing to consider other numbers. I think less than ten or more than fifty would be a mistake though.