b.) The only thing I would ask is a well-formulated question or proposal. I think this might rest on the original proposal maker. It would help me, the voter, to know very specifically about what I'm voting on and what limitations there are. This should be codified in the proposal I mean, because once the voting process starts it seems that the discussion isn't available anymore and isn't prepared to make changes and clarify stuff or answer my question about stuff.

My question is this:

Someone proposes something well-formulated. In the course of the discussion changes are made. a) who reformulates the proposal b) by reformulated and trying to decide WHAT exactly to vote on, are we going to let ourselves in for more and more discussion and come to no agreement.

I see both sides of this. If we make changes to the original proposal, it seems likes someone is likely to feel disenfranchised. If we make ourselves vote on the original proposal, and then have another round after that is over,that is a waste of time.

Perhaps at the end of the discussion period, someone (A volunteer? The original proposer?) rewrites the proposal to reflect changes made during the discussion? I agree it would help if people knew EXACTLY what they were voting on.

Cindy, if you were in my class today, I'd give you a chocolate for you what you said about consensus. I'd also like to add, consensus has a totally different meaning than what the buffistas have been doing (consensus means general agreement on opinion and what we have been doing is either majority, or loudest person, or person who says what they want the most).

So....

Yes to voting.

Yes to a discussion only thread that closes before voting (and opens only when there is an issue). It much the same way that campaigners can't campaign at a voting poll, some of us (me) might need some distance to make a decision. If the convo continues endlessly it's no good.

1 week discussion then 1 week voting seems like a really long time to me. But it's also a neat way to enclose time. If we did 3 business days + 3 business days, it wouldn't work because whose business days? Mine or Nilly's?

I'm for a list of tabled conversations with a predetermined time limit on the not discussing it anymore. I think that list might be a handy plain HTML document and needn't be a thread.

I can't explain why, but I'm not a fan of simple majority. Think about how often we are closely tied in votes (denzel vs. monkey, anyone?) If the community is that closely split, there won't be a satisfactory outcome for a near majority of people. That said, I haven't any other ideas. The social studies teacher who lives next door to my inner english teacher says, "electoral college!" But my inner social studies teacher has had her ass kicked for that idea by my more logical inner english teacher.

I am utterly against the idea of a having only one post to express my opinions. Whether or not it is intended, it will squash discussion. We do a lot of blah blah blah. No surprise to anyone who spends time here.

To this point, I'm only seeing Schmoker and Wolfram's support for an extra condensed discussion thread.

Actually, I suggested a similar type of debate upthread. But not another thread for it.

I am utterly against the idea of a having only one post to express my opinions. Whether or not it is intended, it will squash discussion. We do a lot of blah blah blah. No surprise to anyone who spends time here.

Just one more time because I think what I suggested has been twisted to be about suppressing discussion.

I did NOT suggest we only allow people to make one post. I suggested that we discuss things until we are blue in the face here in Bureau, but that we also have a seperate thread where people are only allowed to post their opinion once, unless they then later change their minds.

It seems that few people online at the moment are in favor of that, and that's totally cool. Majority rules. I agree. But I did want to make sure that no one here thinks I am even remotely suggesting that discussion be abridged or restricted.

but one position at a time would make things clearer.

I reserve the right to change my mind often as I read persuasive posts.

Apologies, schmoker, I misunderstood or misread. I am still against it. The thought of having to participate in a discussion and then write a position paper on it for another thread is no more appealling than the idea of quelling discussion at all.

It's cool, Kat. That I can understand. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't being turned into a book burner. :)

It seems that few people online at the moment are in favor of that, and that's totally cool. Majority rules. I agree. But I did want to make sure that no one here thinks I am even remotely suggesting that discussion be abridged or restricted.

No, I get what you're saying now. But I still think it's redundant and likely to become frustrating.

Hopefully, the fact that there's a consequent voting process will mean that there won't be a lot of duplicative posts. There doesn't need to be "wrod"s or "I agree" or needless arguing with one person because we're not looking for consensus; it should really just be about persuasion and amplification.