Maybe I was just so fat in that pic that it's not possible to get under 10K. I can barely get under 220 pounds.

You can be my Red Queen any day, Ple. After all, I was the caterpillar in high school, and I always had a thing for that whole Off With Your Heads power trip. It was very attractive.

This may be my longest post to date, and like all long-posters, I truly believe that everyone will read this post and say whoa, that is the answer, thanks for showing us the light Wolfram, and I’ll be hoisted upon shoulders and revered hero-of-Cantonian style. Or I may be marcied. But this is the way I see things.

This is not a democracy, it’s a melee of words and ideas bandied about by a small percentage of the membership, and forced into being through persistence, stubbornness and in most cases sheer exhaustion. For most of us, this is not fun.

This afternoon I waded through 200-odd posts of people either a) simplifying a complicated voting procedure; b) complicating a simple voting procedure; or c) getting visibly frustrated, bitter and/or resentful over the constant bickering and arguments going on in this thread. My proposal is simple: leave the arguing, fighting, posturing, debating and haranguing to the people who want to do it. With over 800 registered members, of which at least 135 actively participate and vote, it’s time for representative democracy.

I propose that the membership nominates and elects a “council of watchers” who voluntarily accept the job of doing all of the above with each other. The council votes on the little stuff (what's on the ballot, how to vote, what the hell's a quorum, what issues are “bigger stuff” for the membership to vote on) and takes the bigger stuff to the membership (Monkey, Cheese and Whedon thread - yes/no; whitefonting policy proposals - yes/no; etc.) Council of watcher discussions would be open to all members to participate and make proposals but only “watchers” could make motions and second them for a “watcher” vote.

I know most of you have flinched when you hear the ideas of officers or directors being elected here, but I’m not sure what the knee-jerk reaction is for. Are you afraid of not being fairly represented? Then be a watcher, or nominate someone who will listen to your opinion. Are you worried that it’s over bureaucratizing things? Look around at the monster we have now.

In theory all the members should post their opinions and engage in meaningful discussion on all the issues. In reality, 14 people post 95% of the discussions and it would be impossible for every active board member to actively weigh in on all the issues, nor do they want to. Most active members want to post in peace about Buffy, Angel, Firefly and the HoYay. They don’t want to muddle through 200 posts of Bickereaucracy. And I don’t think it’s necessary that people get frustrated and upset over the discussions going on there. Find someone whose opinion you respect and trust, and nominate him/her for the council of watchers. Or make it known that you’d like to be on the council, and someone will nominate you. Then don’t complain about the arguing, fighting etc.

I honestly think that if this board is going to be around for any long term period of time, there needs to be a system that’s representative as well as practical. And so far, over two weeks and thousands of posts have gone by and a voting system for voting has yet to be finalized. The irony is starting to get ridiculous.

I propose that the membership nominates and elects a “council of watchers”

There's not enough "HELL, NO" in the world for how I feel about this, really.

I honestly think that if this board is going to be around for any long term period of time, there needs to be a system that’s representative as well as practical. And so far, over two weeks and thousands of posts have gone by and a voting system for voting has yet to be finalized. The irony is starting to get ridiculous.

IT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.

Already.

There's not enough "HELL, NO" in the world for how I feel about this, really.

Can I get a HELL, WHY?

I know most of you have flinched when you hear the ideas of officers or directors being elected here, but I’m not sure what the knee-jerk reaction is for.

Because I come here to laugh and talk to my friends. Because I think that a group of 800 people, most of whom lurk, does not need elected officers or directors. Because I have participated in Vermont Town Meetings managing a group of much, much more than 800 people *with real budgets*, and the only officer necessary was a moderator and a parliamentarian, often the same person.

Because, in short, this is precisely the kind of bureaucratic overkill that makes me want to scream and tear my hair.

Elected officers mean elections, with all the pain and favoritism that implies. It means an official system of "some are more equal than others". The more-efficient decisionmaking process you promise is in no way as important to me as the drawbacks I perceive.

I know most of you have flinched when you hear the ideas of officers or directors being elected here, but I’m not sure what the knee-jerk reaction is for.

Because one of the one things we have consistently resisted is the idea of having "special" community members. We balk at the terms "high-status", or "true Buffista". Even the Stompies will insist that just because they have the power to white-out posts and close tags and do other nifty stuff, they're not any more important than anyone else. When we start electing representatives, we've firmly moved out of Cocktail Party Land. And I like it there.

I appreciate the thought that you're putting into this, Wolfram, but you're swimming upstream here.

Edited to add a "g".

IT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.

Not at the current membership level.

Not at the current membership level.

We have no way of measuring how many lurkers there were at TT. Maybe we did at WX, but I don't remember any firm figures from there.