I think the question of email or not is a technical question. We plan to set up a polling system eventually. Until then e-mail is the only available method. I did suggest and intermediate thing we can do - (I would create polls one at a time on the server, which is very simple compared to doing a true polling set up.) But ita pointed out it could cause server load. That means there is no practical alternative to e-mail. So there is no point in voting on e-mail because there is no alternative.

I third Cindy's post.

OK I'lll forth it. I guess no harm in just yes on e-mail.

(I would create polls one at a time on the server, which is very simple compared to doing a true polling set up.)

But there'd still need to be HTML, Phoenix compatible additions, error checking, etc. Which is why I vote e-mail all the way, until later.

Have you *met* the Monkey people? But seriously -- you wouldn't lobby to get a discussion opened once the discussion is open.

But this isn't true. If not even five people are interested in discussing it, then being allowed to put it on another thread does not open the discussion in any meaningful sense. If they'd clog the bureacracy thread with endless lobbying, they'd have the same need and do the same in the discussion thread.

Regarding item 5

there is no practical alternative to e-mail. So there is no point in voting on e-mail because there is no alternative.

Gar makes a good point. I was composing the motion while meara-ing and something about method caught my eye. But I will be glad to remove item 5 entirely, if it seems like there is agreement (or you know, "agreeance" if you're a rock star).

Billytea, my idea is hinging on that once it's been opened for discussion, there'll be 4 days of potential discussion, and then nothing else for 6 months to a year. I really want to see that happen for pointless suggestions. Really, a lot. It's the moratorium I'm seeking.

Cindy -- good idea. Who's the tallier for that vote? You? And I agree with the dropping of the vote methodology.

ita -which is why I agreed there is not alternative. All of that stuff including the HTML would be easy for me to do. But doing it ad hoc like that would mean it is not optimized and would create server load. So you are right that with our database load problems it is not practical. That is why I tried to withdraw the suggestion. But it is in the proposal now (even though I'm the only one who brought it up) and now I'm going to have to vote against my own proposal, because there was a good reason not to do it I did not see. Which is another argument for requiring a minimum of support before something is brought to a vote.

Are we allowed to propose amendments to Cindy's proposals? 'Cause I like Item 4 except I think there should be an exception for major holidays. For example, Xmas this year falls on a Thursday. I think it's fair to say that a large number of folks will be offline from Wednesday 12/24 through Sunday 12/28. If someone proposed something on Xmas eve, lots of folks would miss all the discussion. Which is a long-winded way of saying maybe we should add a sentence "Discussion and/or voting could be extended in the event of major holidays."

Billytea, my idea is hinging on that once it's been opened for discussion, there'll be 4 days of potential discussion, and then nothing else for 6 months to a year. I really want to see that happen for pointless suggestions. Really, a lot. It's the moratorium I'm seeking.

If you can close discussions without any interest in the discussion thread, why can't you do the same in the bureaucracy thread? I don't see the benefit of extending the rigmarole and spreading it over two threads when it's so starved for interest.