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
Thread-naming does not need the Big Buffista Decision Procedure.
Not even sure which post I copied the above from, but I would like to say that even though I agree with it, and would vote for it, the trouble with opening up this voting procedure, I think, is that none of us has the authority to decide what does or doesn't need to be voted upon on our own. I don't think thread naming needs to be put to a vote, and, in fact, I think it would be a giant pain in the ass if each thread needed to be voted upon before it could be opened.
But now that we are voting, don't we need to have a vote to see if the will of the board is for or against voting on thread names? Or do a handful here have the power to decide whether or not an issue even gets to a vote?
Also, am I wrong or are the two major options for getting a 50% majority on issues with multiple choices either preferential voting or runoffs? If there are only two choices, why not just put them up for a vote before we get into another of those endless circular discussions?
Oh, and I can't believe I'm actually doing this all again. Now I must go pray my head does not explode.
Anathema, I think that it was already decided that we would do the thread naming the same way as always before we voted to vote. I think that was inherant in the 'voting on big decisions' thing.
Also, am I wrong or are the two major options for getting a 50% majority on issues with multiple choices either preferential voting or runoffs? If there are only two choices, why not just put them up for a vote before we get into another of those endless circular discussions?
No, there are three choices. There's preferential voting, runoffs (which are really just two different ways of doing the same thing), or saying that if no choice gets 50%, there's no change made.
But now that we are voting, don't we need to have a vote to see if the will of the board is for or against voting on thread names?
One of the premises of the initial vote was that this procedure would not be used for thread names. If someone wanted to change that, we could discuss it at some point, but it's not something we have to decide now.
I think thread naming was specifically excluded from things to vote on through the original ballot.
am I wrong or are the two major options for getting a 50% majority on issues with multiple choices either preferential voting or runoffs? If there are only two choices, why not just put them up for a vote before we get into another of those endless circular discussions?
I suspect you're right.
Edit: I think you're right we should vote-- on the three choices (see Hil's post above).
t head unexplody vibes
No Anathema - thread naming was specifically excluded when we put voting up for a vote.
If someone wants us to actually vote on thread naming, they'd have to propose a vote on that. But it was specifically excluded from the outset. This is a big-decisions process.
Ok, just wondered. I didn't remember that the ballot specifically mentioned that thread naming would not needed to be one of the issues voted upon.
Was anything else specifically excluded from voting? Sorry if I missed it, but just want to make sure I am up to speed.
From the ballot Sophia Brooks "Sunnydale Press" Feb 25, 2003 11:55:53 pm EST
Item 1: VOTING
A yes vote on this item signifies the voter agrees that we should create a voting system for community decisions that do not require immediate action.
Exemptions: Thread naming, disciplinary action against trolls (although the process itself could come up for a vote at some point) and tasks currently performed by Stompy Feet, including but not limited to board maintenance.
Thanks again.
Maybe the next B thread should be called:
Bureaucracy 2: Ask and you shall receive
Quick interjection -- "timelies" should be added to the FAQ, in the dialect section. Something like:
Q: Timelies? When?
A: "Timelies" is a multi-time-zone-friendly greeting for our poly-time-zone community. It evolved from "Good Morning/Day/Afternoon/Evening/Night!" into "Timely Greetings!" and eventually the simple "Timelies" you see being used on the board today.
