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.

Maybe we can wait until Midnight EST before we start voting?

I am 100% in favour of this.

Ita made the proposal, Typo. Not you. You can't withdraw a proposal she made.

Betsy, I happen to agree with you. I only mentioned officers as a way to have proposals actually formalized and set up for voting once they are made.

But, yes, it's all a giant pain in the ass. And voting itself is a pain. I think the board is great and runs fine, but if people want a system, they should create a system, as opposed to simply trying to legitimize the blah-blah-Buffista decisions that a handful are making.

The endless discussion in and of itself limits democracy, because the inherent confusion and debate is driving people away from the process. The only way a true democratic system can work is if it is simple, and if it is set up so as to give all participants an equal amount of power.

So when someone proposes something and is seconded, having to then get through a round of debate over the damn proposal is not remotely democratic. Discussion is what you do before a proposal is made. But once someone decides they want to make a formal proposal, all that's left is to have an appropriate amount of people second that proposal as is, then you vote.

Ok, and I'm spent. Sorry if I got all deranged here. Just trying to help. I'll go back to lurking until I can't stands it no more.