'Heart Of Gold'
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
, Austrialia, Canada, Great Britian/UK, Israel, Chile and Spain.
I was just guessing. I forgot Germany, for instance. We have no one in Chile, that I'm aware of. Which means little.
That's why I like big discussion times, like a 4 days min. But it seems people see more of these debates than I do, and with greater urgency.
But, now billytea and Gar are talking about how many people need to be interested in the issue before we can formally discuss it in the (not yet voted on) issues thread. I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves with that.
I'm good with getting the core stuff voted on first.
Like Cindy said, let's leave some things to the discretion and good sense of the board when the time comes.
Exactly. Cindy's original item was very specific. I'm trying to make it less so. No need to get into the definition of "holiday" right now, but I'd like to see an acknowledgement that the time periods can be extended in certain instances.
None of my blithering has anything to do with Cindy's suggestion. Really, all it needs is a volunteer, and then I can set up an e-mail forward to their e-mail addy, someone can note it in press, and we're off.
I am a freak. Therefore I will count votes.
Cindy - I do think we may need to refine the proposal a bit before voting. I know you and Hec are impatient to move on this - but it does seem that quorum is being used in two ways - number of votes needed for it to pass, vs. number needed to discuss -with some supporting one, some supporting the other and some supporting neither.
ita - the proposal has 4 days discussion period built into it, and 3 days voting period.
Sophia, does this help on the quorum thing?... First quorum issue is regarding voting. Do we need a minimum number of Buffistas voting, to enact whatever it is we just voted on. So say I asked that the discussion thread be opened so that we could vote on whether or not we require Gar to post while wearing an "I love W" button. If only 3 people show up to vote, and two of us vote "yes", is that enough to require Gar to wear the "I love W" button. If we want a quorum of Buffistas voting, it's not enough. If we only care that the majority of those interested approved the measure, it's buttons for Gar.
Gar and billytea are saying that perhaps we need at least a minimum number of people to open up the discussion thread, never mind voting.
No need to get into the definition of "holiday" right now, but I'd like to see an acknowledgement that the time periods can be extended in certain instances.
Jon - I agree with that and will add wording to that effect to the motion. I'll then repost it.
Thanks Cindy.
the proposal has 4 days discussion period built into it, and 3 days voting period.
Sorry -- I was being completely non sequiturish and reacting to Billytea's 24 hour suggestion. However, since my urge is to get unsupported decisions put away for six months or more, even 24 minutes is fine by me, although incredibly unfair.
vote@buffistas.org now points to your profile address, jengod.