I like Typo's idea, although I think we need to include a linked definition of preferential voting.
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
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
Really, a group of officers should be elected to a set time period. They should be responsible for watching the thread and setting up a vote on any issue that has been proposed and seconded. That way things happen according to a system and not through endless and repetitive debate.
But I have a feeling that electing officers might take a year and a half.
Anthama - right the vote will take place - but we did agree to a discussio period. Also wording is not finalized. We can add another questions still, but I'm not yet making it formal proposal because if people are going to go nuclear it can wait.
Not to jump on Typo, but this is flat out wrong.
A proposal was made and seconded. Once that happens, you vote. You don't then sit around and rework the proposal until the people who happen to be in thread at the time are happy.
Once a proposal has been made and seconded, you vote on it. Period. You don't change the proposal, because it was seconded as is.
This is exactly what is driving me (and, I think, other laissez-faire people) nuts.
Something simple is proposed. People say "Yes, let's do it." Somebody says "wait, you haven't covered this corner case!" Somebody else says "Is this really what we want to do about the corner case?"
It seems to me that we're insisting on the 100% perfect solution every time, and that the pursuit of perfection is getting in the way of closing discussion and getting things done.
I do not want to get into preferential voting right now. The discussion on what the hell that means seems to need to continue, if it's an option. Because about 5 posters are convinced they grok it.
I just want to clarify the previous ballot.
Nilly has offered to tally, so that's good. I will not be able to put up a voting form -- my only urge to wait would be if Jon can do one today.
If not, it can be done via e-mail -- I'll just point vote(s)@buffistas.org to Nilly.
Really, a group of officers should be elected to a set time period.
There are not words to express how much I dislike this solution.
Here is my stand. It's one person's stand.
We are overthinking. This is not a government. This is not a science fiction convention. This is a party. A large, diffuse cocktail party. It has a bulletin board, it has a small budget, it has people who arrange for ordering drinks and paying the hotel.
But we don't need management apparatus suitable to a corporation. We do just fine without it.
Er - we are not under Robert rules of order Anthanma. And the last proposal was revised until the last minute. And if you insist on getting formal, it can be proposed as an amendment. And often, in places run by Roberts rules of order, there is such a thing as friendly amendment - meaning a proposal the the origial proposer and the majority of seconders agree improves the proposal. And again we are not under Roberts Rules of Order.
Just make a formal announcment somewhere that a proposal has been offered and seconded and a vote is now beginning. And if people aren't happy with the wording or whatever, then they can vote against it. And that's democracy. If enough people vote for it, then it passes. And that's also democracy.
What's not democracy is dicking around until we are sure that a majority are IN FAVOR of a proposal before we vote on the damn thing. That's not even possible anyway, because only a handful of people are posing in here. And even fewer are bothering to read the posts.
my only urge to wait would be if Jon can do one today.
I can do it this evening. Maybe we can wait until Midnight EST before we start voting?
But I specifically said I would withdraw the proposal if anyone hated it - I wasn't trying for perfection. I was trying to cut the number of votes.
It was offered as a friendly amendment if you want to be that formal (which I don't think we do).
I don't mind being disagreed with. I said right at the beginning that I was willing to withdraw it.. I simply offered a second item for the ballot to save time - something we did on the last friggin ballot. And if everyone is going to be all democractic - let me point out that one item that was democratically passed was that there would be a 3 day discussion period before people voted on things. And there was no ambiguity about that. Everyone knew what they were voting for on that one.
I'm not pushing that point. But don't accuse me of dickign around or seeking perfection I'm every bit as irritated as you folks are. Actually "rage" would be a better description of my current emotional state.