I'm a single undead gal trying to make it in the big city. I have to start somewhere and they're evil here. They don't judge. They've got necro-tempered glass. No burning up. A great medical plan, and who needs dental more than us?

Harmony ,'Conviction (1)'


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


Jesse - Feb 24, 2003 1:32:59 pm PST #5215 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

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!!!


amych - Feb 24, 2003 1:39:33 pm PST #5216 of 10001
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

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!


Jesse - Feb 24, 2003 1:42:16 pm PST #5217 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

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!"


Lyra Jane - Feb 24, 2003 1:43:35 pm PST #5218 of 10001
Up with the sun

Consider the ending discussion early proposal tabula rasa'ed. I see why it's a bad idea now.


§ ita § - Feb 24, 2003 1:47:30 pm PST #5219 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

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?


Sue - Feb 24, 2003 1:50:29 pm PST #5220 of 10001
hip deep in pie

What's the tie-breaker solution?

Thumb wrestling.


brenda m - Feb 24, 2003 1:50:59 pm PST #5221 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

instructions to vote (by the person that proposed it, or the person who's tallying?),

Since I'll be much surprised if the actual questions are the same as the original suggestion, I don't think the original person will necessarily be the one. My gut feeling is that wording will need to be hashed out in-thread anyway towards the end of the discussion, although that could raise issues.


amych - Feb 24, 2003 1:52:37 pm PST #5222 of 10001
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

instructions to vote (by the person that proposed it, or the person who's tallying?)

By the proposer, I think. Jesse and Nilly have done us a big favor by volunteering to do the vote counts; I'd hate to see them have to write up each proposal as well. The proposal should be in a fairly standard form, but I really think it should be the responsibility of the person who thought the issue was important enough to call for a formal discussion and vote in the first place.

What's the tie-breaker solution?

Duelling.


§ ita § - Feb 24, 2003 1:53:21 pm PST #5223 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Whether or not the position changes, someone needs to restate it before voting starts. I just want it to be clear whose responsibility it is, so that moment isn't left dangling. The proposer, the tallyer, brenda m, whoever.


DavidS - Feb 24, 2003 1:53:30 pm PST #5224 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

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.

I concur with this. The only reason we were talking about a week for discussion and a week for voting was to make sure that everybody that wanted to discuss or vote had a chance. Also a week is a clean sort of marker. A week is a long time really because the discussions themselves can be very intense and active and cover a lot of territory in three days. (We've already come a long way since we were at WX.)

Also, by the time we open the Supreme Court thread, the issue will have already been kicked around a bit in Bureaucracy.

I think the main thing is to be conscious about patterns of board use - which is, a lot of people don't post on the weekend, and a lot of people only post in the evening after work or dinner. Four days would cover anybody who is gone over the weekend, and anybody who uses the board regularly would be able to participate in the discussion and voting.

We'll never be able to fully accomodate everybody's business trips or life crises but this would be fair considering the way people do use the board.

Is there any broad agreement about putting a time limit on this discussion so we can say, "That's enough let's vote"? Three more days of this talk? End of the week? Next Monday? Sooner?