Oh yeah? I am 110% in favor.
'Trash'
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
scrappy, don't make me come over there and prove my 100% is bigger than your 110%.
What's the worse case scenario if we don't have everything polished and approved and lined up and approved by everyone before the vote? We have to do a referendum on a couple of minor points? The horror.
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.
"this [arms stretched wide apart] much" and "more than you can possibly imagine" are the ones that come instantly to my mind.
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.
Yes. This.
Let's not keep breeding ducks to nibble us to death here.
We had ONE issue to decide, and that's "how many are the minimum number of voters?"
But I did not withdraw a proposal ita made. I withdrew my suggested amendment. Look three points:
1) I made a proposal to be helpful It was not found helpful. I withdrew it.
2) But given how this whole process has gone I won't accept rudeness. I really want an apology from Anthama for the "dicking" comment.
3) And I'm withdrawing because I am convinced it was a bad idea ,not because it violates process. First of all, seconding in our system (which has not been passed in any case) does not rule out amendments. Formal presentation does that (an announcement in of the vote) does that. And I will point out that an improvement in wording was in fact made after it was proposed and seconded. So what I wanted to do was perfectly within the process of how we are doing it. And we are violating our own process by having the vote start at midnight tonight. I see the need, and I'm not pushing it. but please don't use "violation of process" arguments in this particular discussion.
Since I feel I've been mischaracterized, I want to clarify. When I suggested that we hold off for a week, I wasn't trying to shut down discussion because I was uncomfortable. All I could see was anger and frustration and talking in circles in every direction & to me that's unproductive. Well, it's productive if what you want to produce is more posts, but that's about it.
We are overthinking. This is not a government. This is not a science fiction convention. This is a party. A large, diffuse cocktail party.
God, yes! I'd also say we are taking ourselves way too seriously, but I'm sure that will piss people off again. So pretend I didn't say it.
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.
Perhaps but, er, I don't think that's what we voted to do. I could be wrong. I thought we voted to propose changes, discuss for 4 days, and then vote. But whatever.
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.
We voted to have 4 days of discussion before a vote. We've had 2 on this issue so far.
Good lord, two more days of this? No one's going to be speaking to anyone.
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.
Well, then, frankly, if it can't be explained in a way that the majority of the voters don't get it/like it, it probably gets voted down.
Typo, the dicking around comment was not directed at you. It was directed at the process in general, which has seemed to devolve into endless dicking around on proposals that should be voted upon.
And I regret posting. Sorry. I have tried ever so hard to stay out of this discussion, but I saw people getting very upset so I tried to see if I help get things back on task. Probably that was a mistake. And I will go back to staying out of things.