Yay! Jengod.

Boo math!

The list:

1. immediate problem of the board being down and how we can fix it (which ita is doing)

• Take out older closed threads and archive them elsewhere, with a separate tool for Nilly-age for the archive if necessary (Discussion in Building a Better Board)
• Modify search functions so that there is a size limitation on the result (Discussion in Building a Better Board)
• Politely ask the webmaster/mistresses of Whedonesque, slayage.com & spoiler slayer, etc. not to link directly to the posts, but to use quotes +/- link to the main page (done)
• A few days' suspension of new-user registration after a celebrity post, with an gently-worded encouragement to the newbies to lurk a while and come back so-and-so-many days later if still interested
• Review threads for redunancies, obsolete threads and possibly joining threads together (will this actually help anything technically? Although it might stop arguements FOR thread prolif)) This is the only one that I think needs community input. Other issues are more technical.
• Limit automatic page refresh from Message Center to no more frequently than 5 minutes. (done)

2. HOW we decide things, because I think that will eliminate any of this talking and talking and talking about something until finally we don't decide. Or make a decision because people objecting have left the thread Suggestions

• Closed Decisions (ex: War Thread has been voted against, no more requests for 6 months) (This still needs to be dealt with)
• Using Mr. Poll or on-site polling for new threads (no)
• Allyson's idea in [link] (basically a thread to announce a proposal, dicuss it for a limited period of time, and then vote.) Then the decision would be final for 6 months to 1 year. (This still needs to be dealt with)
• Have a text or HTML list available of what is a closed decision

3. What is the scope of our community? ( is this possible to vote on?)

4. thread proliferation to be or not to be (see how we make decisions)

• will combining threads lead to more posting? (ex. TV threads combined)
• Do we need/want to combine threads?

5. Dealing with annoying people/trolls (which might just be solved by marcie)

• whiffle (seems like people are against)
• MARCIE (seems like people are for. Also I thought it was a sone deal)
• Firmer guildines for stompies and/or more power to stompies.

5a. Helping new users become acclimated:

• read only membership for a certain period of time to help people acclimate.
• forcing them to read the FAQ before psting? (I though we already asked them to read site rules?) (Do we need to vote on this?)
• linking to on-site rules before posting(Do we need to vote on this?)

Please note that we have an etiquette guide in both filk and non-filk formats already.

6. Other

• clearer place listing stompy feet.(Do we need to vote on this?)

PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT PROPOSING ANY OF THIS. I am merely listing what we discussed at WX.

---

I think it's terribly sad that Steph's never heard "Officer Krupke", or presumably, seen "West Side Story

FWIW, I 've seen West Side Story at least twice all the way through, and bits and pieces other times. I grok that it was an important musical, but I still don't have the tune in my head.

I would like the short ettiquette to be the default link, because I agree the filk is fairly intimidating, especially to newbies. But I admit I'm biased.

Woo-hoo to the voting. I can't believe those majorities... and Sophia, thanks for reposting the list. I guess the next decisions are size of the quorum and Supreme Court thread?

I'd also like to ask that we include agreeing to for discussing Angel in Buffy and vice versa after a the 1-week grace period in the next ballot, even if it is otherwise about procedural issues. It's just such a time-sensitive issue.

---

Was a final vote tabulation posted and I missed it?

I like to propose that the next vote be on the size for the minimum vote. And I'd like to propose we vote for the following options

a - 20-----b - 40------c - 60------d - 68 (which is 50% + 0.5)

If we end up having more than 4 choices for which we may vote, then I would also propose a runoff between the two highest vote getters (assuming no choice gets 51%). Reason being, with too many choices you may end up having a minority of 21%, or less, making the decision.

Just a proposal. I don't feel strongly enough to argue the point.

---

The voting totals were posted in Press last night.

---

---

The final vote: jengod "Sunnydale Press" Mar 3, 2003 12:00:27 am EST

jengod and Sophia and all of you - I hope somebody says it better in a few posts so that I can just 'wrod' them, but in the meantime, just my humble thanks for all your work, and my hopes that I'll be more available in the future to help. You very much rock.

[Edit: Everything could be mathier. But in a fun way.]

---

A quick stab at the next round of decisions (after which most of this stuff will be over)

1. Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?

2. Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?

3. How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? Do abstentions count toward this?

4. Do we have some way of deciding what we vote on? Do we need "seconds"? Obviously not everything needs to be voted on!

edited to reflect ita's and Jon's suggestion.

---

2. Do we want to close the talking about a subject after the voting starts?

I recommend this language be changed to "Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?"

---

Sophia's Four Points look good to me.

Thanks so much for receiving the votes and tabulating and everything, jengod!

I'm all excited because of how many people voted. I just think it's great. I'm also glad that there were so few weekend voters, because I did wonder about peoples' access. I guess weekend-access people are also evening-access people, generally.

---

I'll edit, ita.

---