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
One reason for setting the minyam at a fairly high level instead of just letting interest determine outcome (that is, five people want Clem is Hott, they vote on it and add the thread) is that we will probably need a brake on thread proliferation for technical reasons. I suppose that now that we're aware that our threadfulness is causing problems, folks will be conscious enough to vote down new threads unless they seem very necessary.
I suppose I could trust that once people get used to voting that folks will bother to vote on issues even if the issues aren't hugely important to them.
This might all become more clear when we establish the seconding procedure that would move discussion out of Bureaucracy into the Supreme Court thread. If we go that way (which is my preference) there will be a natural check on keeping us from getting Vote Crazy. Also, I'm really craving the time limit on the Supreme Court thread and focused discussion with beginning and end and voting and it's all damn settled.
I hate the idea of a Supreme Court thread because it seems like thread duplication to me.
I'm seeing a lot of suggestion that having a low minyan or none at all will mean that a small group of people can do things like add threads that the rest of us don't want. But if you're anti thread proliferation...vote against it. If 29 people want a Clem thread and only 15 of the rest of us can be arsed to vote against it, then I say let them have and on our own heads be it.
If that's how you feel, then you vote against quorum, but I don't think it's reasonable to decide, if quorum is passed, to make the number so small as to effectively render it meaningless.
I was just expressing my opinion, Burrell. If I'd written the motion based only on what I want, that item wouldn't have even made it. It's there because a significant number of Buffistas support it, but still, a significant number of Buffistas also support keeping it small.
I hate the idea of a Supreme Court thread because it seems like thread duplication to me.
I like it for these reasons: puts a simple check on topics before moving them to vote; it has a clear and defined period of discussion - when it's closed it's closed; it lets Bureaucracy go back to dealing with issues which are more administrative.
If quorum is passed the next step is to figure a reasonable number. We would need statistics to determine that number. I'm one step at a time girl, so I await the results of the vote in progress before debating the next potential step.
I hate the idea of a Supreme Court thread because it seems like thread duplication to me.
I disagree. If there's to be focused debate on some issue of importance for (say) four days, and another issue of bureaucratic importance arises during that time, I don't want that issue to get lost in the swamp of the debate.
t edit
and what Hec said....
I like it for these reasons: puts a simple check on topics before moving them to vote; it has a clear and defined period of discussion - when it's closed it's closed; it lets Bureaucracy go back to dealing with issues which are more administrative.
So, what you're describing would be this:
In Bureaucracy, suggestions are brought up. If enough people are interested (a fixed number or not), they are brought to this "Supreme Court" thread for formal discussion (for whatever period of time we decide) before voting (or not, based on the results of this current vote).
So then, Bureaucracy is left to thread naming, and...what else?
