Buffy ,'Get It Done'
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
Or, conversely, if everyone pretty much agreed right away, you could motion to vote at the end of the first or second day. Okay, I like this.
Well, the problem with this is that the few days for discussion isn't so much to generate a certain number of posts or viewpoints as to ensure that everyone has a reasonable chance of being here for the discussion. I think three days should be sufficient - but perhaps for really major or contentious stuff it could be extended.
What's the danger with overlapping the voting with the discussion? That way people who need more discussion time can have it and not have to vote until the last day. I see that nobody seems to think this is a good idea and I'm curious as to why that is.
What's the danger with overlapping the voting with the discussion? That way people who need more discussion time can have it and not have to vote until the last day. I see that nobody seems to think this is a good idea and I'm curious as to why that is.
To me it seems messy. a) Buffistas could talk forever with no limit and b) what if I voted and then someone changed my mind.
To me it seems messy. a) Buffistas could talk forever with no limit and b) what if I voted and then someone changed my mind.
a) the discussion would end when the votes did b) don't read the discussions post-vote or implement a way to change votes. What if you change you mind after voting if there was no discussion?
What's the danger with overlapping the voting with the discussion? That way people who need more discussion time can have it and not have to vote until the last day. I see that nobody seems to think this is a good idea and I'm curious as to why that is.
I think the intent of the discussion is at least to change some people's vote. And the proposal may change in the interim. Although I do like the efficiency; perhaps the last day of discussion could also open up voting. I dunno that the third day (say) would change that many votes.
To me it seems messy. a) Buffistas could talk forever with no limit and b) what if I voted and then someone changed my mind.
Ditto.
I like the idea of being able to add another day or two onto a three-day discussion period, but not voting any sooner than that.
Also? WHIP!!!
I think the intent of the discussion is at least to change some people's vote. And the proposal may change in the interim.
Yes, and yes.
What about a week for the issue, in total; 4 days' discussion followed by 3 days' voting. That way, unless there's a holiday weekend, there should always be both weekday and weekend access to both discussion and voting.
It's not that I'm wedded to a week for each, in spite of my earlier protests. But I'm against making either time period only a day or two, and even more against cutting off discussions early with an apparent early consensus -- I worry that it'll be too easy to say "do we all agree? okay? let's start voting" when there are only a few people around.
Also? WHIP!!!
Gawd, y'all are so porny. I'm shocked!
I worry that it'll be too easy to say "do we all agree? okay? let's start voting" when there are only a few people around.
That's exactly the problem we've been having already. "OK?" "OK!"
Consider the ending discussion early proposal tabula rasa'ed. I see why it's a bad idea now.
I like the four and three.
I like a discussion thread, at the end of each discussion is a post that discussion is closed; instructions to vote (by the person that proposed it, or the person who's tallying?), announcement of tallyer, end date (board time) of voting period, and that post repeated in press.
Then the voting starts (and no re-voting, which I see as a risk of the continued discussion).
Voting ends (post added to discussion thread).
Voting is tallied (post with results and duration of ban discussion on this topic goes into Press and discussion thread, and linked to by Nilly).
This I could live with.
I dislike quorums. Quora. Whatever. I think if only three people care, they should get their chance to change the world. If I don't want stuff to happen, then I'll cast a vote.
What's the tie-breaker solution?