I have gathered the impression that 'the median' in English parlance is 'the central reservation.'

I really like the idea that a high number of seconds must be garnered to move a resolution into voting.

Oh, and if nobody else volunteers, I can tally again (with the same schedule problem of being away from a computer on most of Friday-Saturday).

With this, or any vote in the future I can take a turn at tally duty. Not a problem.

I know I have asked this 55 times, but if one other person agrees with me, I will do it.

Since we agreed on this:

A yes vote on this item signifies the voter agrees that seven days time is sufficient to discuss the issue. The week would be broken down thusly: Discussion: Days 1, 2, 3, and 4. Voting: Days 5, 6, 7. When there is a conflict for major holidays (to be defined) we will make accommodations (to be defined) as needed. We will vote later on whether discussions end on day 4 or continue during the votes.

Should we try to stick to it and announce in PRESS when the discussion begins?

I'm not sure why participants here have been dismissed as a "Gang of 14." Everyone has the opportunity to participate.

Fred, sure, everyone can participate, but then, everyone can get root canals if they want to. The implication behind using such phrases as "gang of 14" (which I find pretty impolitic and unkind, although shorn of its context strangely jazzy) is that there are fourteen people participating in a gigantic bureaucracy-wank, who are driving out everyone else who might otherwise participate.

As I said, an impolitic term. But the truth remains, there are a very few participants to this thread, relative to the voter turnout we've been able to muster. The detail and contentiousness on this thread have made people complain, here and on other threads, that they can't read Bureaucracy any more, for mental health and/or blood pressure reasons.

Operationally, the effect is similar to when mieskie was trolling the Firefly thread -- people stay away in droves. When that happens in Bureaucracy, an important thread for all of us, I think that's a bad thing!

So, proposal.

if so, is there a minimum number of people who have to agree with the original proposer before a proposal moves to formal discussion? Put a number between 1 and 10 into this box, please: [ ]

Does that solve the problem?

Should we try to stick to it and announce in PRESS when the discussion begins?

I say yes. Anyway, a Press announcement would be useful now, if we're looking to move on towards voting soon. (Please!)

Sophia, I've been thinking about this, and feel like a retroactive announcement is fine. I mean, people can see when there are a bunch of posts in here, right? So we could today post in Press that this discussion started yesterday, or whatever, and that voting would start on Saturday. But when did this current discussion start? I mean, it's pretty much the same proposal that's come up several times already.

How about between 1 and 15?

Should we try to stick to it and announce in PRESS when the discussion begins?

Let the discussion begin!

How about between 1 and 15?

To start a discussion? That really seems like a lot, esp. given the now-infamous Gang of 14.