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
Gar - the problem with the "seconds" addition is we'll have to vote on whether or not to have a supreme court (or similar) thread. There were posters who were against taking it that far. I do think adding the quorum-necessary-for-discussion is a huge leap in scope.
After we have a voting procedure in place, we address whether or not to require that a proposal gets seconded for even discussing it.
The item in the current motion only address how we want to vote. One of the issues (that could conceivably happen even if a quorum turned up for the discussion) to consider when deciding on a voting process is what to do if we put an issue up for a vote and only a handful of people can be arsed to vote on it at all.
Not including the discussion quorum/seconds item doesn't make it go away. It can and should be brought to vote as well. But we need a voting procedure approved first.
I'd agree to a discussion on a topic I end up not caring enough about to vote on.
Me too. In fact, I'm against making someone rally support to discuss an issue. We've never done it that way here. So when we do vote on seconds at some point, I'll vote against it, and if it passes anyway, I'll second any point anyone wants to discuss. Because if a Buffista wants to discuss something at the Buffista board, a Buffista should get to discuss something.
people are less likely to propose something they can't get much enthusiaism for
How will they know beforehand?
OK - deleted after x-post with Cindy. I see your point; I just think that in practice they are related. Even if we don't have a Supreme Court thread - we could use seconds to limit discussion in Kafka.
If we are voting on whether to limit discussion (and we are) and voting on whether to have quorum (and we are) then I think seconds should be included. Because - even though they are not redundant in strict logic - in practice they do very similar things.
There are people who support the idea of seconds; they were posting earlier, but not now. I'm wondering if anyone who opposes having seconds on this ballot supports it in general?
But seconding is not stopping Buffista discusison in general. It avoids starting a particular formal process that requires labor on the part of buffistas when there is no chance of something passing.
I actually do think I support it in general. I don't support it on this ballot.
If we don't discuss it on this ballot, what damage have we done?
I'm wondering if anyone who opposes having seconds on this ballot supports it in general?
I'm not sure yet whether I support it in general. Don't support it on the ballot.
