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.
I've been thinking about this, and feel like a retroactive announcement is fine.
I understand your point, but I think we should stick to the 4/3 plan. Discuss today through Saturday, vote Sunday through Tuesday? That also splits up the weekend nicely.
I understand your point, but I think we should stick to the 4/3 plan. Discuss today through Saturday, vote Sunday through Tuesday? That also splits up the weekend nicely.
Definitely the 4/3 plan. But I'm disinclined to say this conversation is only just starting now.
A new version:
ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD
Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?
A yes vote on this Item means you would like a new thread, that will be solely dedicated to formal discussion of future items put forward for voting. This thread will only be open during the designated days of formal discussion.
A no vote means you do not want a new thread. (Presumably in this case, all discussion will take place in Bureaucracy.)
----------------
ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION
Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?
A yes vote on this item means that you would like to end all discussion on a given item when voting starts.
A no vote means you would like to continue discussion through the voting period.
----------------
ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT
How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? Do abstentions count toward this?
For the first question, put a number between 2 and 100 into this box, please: [ ] An AVERAGE (rounded to the nearest 5) of these numbers will be used to determine the voter turnout
For the second part, it's a simple yes or no.
If you vote yes, you would allow people to register their vote as an abstention -- that is, with no preference for either choice -- and that vote would count toward the minimum number
If you vote no, you want only votes that prefer one option to count toward the minimum.
----------------
ITEM 4: SECONDS
a) Should more than one Buffista be needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote?
b) Please choose 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: [ ]
You may answer this question even if you choose to vote no to proposal (a)
An AVERAGE (rounded to the nearest 5) of these numbers will be used to determine the number of people needed to second. [ ]
Also, con someone else post in press. I am getting a bad reputation ; )
