I really don't want to have to threadsuck Natter and search for war posts, and conversely I don't want my posts getting lost in baking tips, and baby stories (not that I don't have posts about those either).
It will always be the case, for any topic, that several people are interested in just that topic, and would prefer not to have to read through everything else in order to get to that topic.
Our experience has been that creating a new topic increases bandwidth.
I oppose creating topics for that reason alone.
Actually, I should just put this out there, unless someone thinks it's a bad idea and wants me to take it down. These are the results I came up with. I used a spreadsheet and moved people who changed their opinions over to their final stance as of brenda m "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Feb 19, 2003 7:34:13 pm EST. [Though I probably should have kept a different column for them.]
Please let me know if I have incorrectly interpreted your stance:
In favor (6): Am-Chau Yarkona, amych, Cindy, Gandalfe, Holli, Steph L
Opposed (26): Angus G, Anne W, Betsy HP, Beverly, brenda m, Burell, Consuela, David J. Schwartz , DavidS, Fred Pete , Hil R., Jeff Mejia , jengod, Jess PMoon, Jim Eaton-Terry, Kat, Laura, Michele T., Nilly, Perkins, PMM, scrappy, Shawn, Susan W, victor infante
Undecided (2): Liese S, Lyra Jane
If I've misrepresented you, please let me know. Also, I apologize for any and all spelling errors in your names.
old decisions should be treated like voted in or voted out proposals, and should thus have a waiting period.
Absolutely. Or some of us will lose our minds.
I changed to opposed, don't know if it wound up in there.
Bitterchick, I proposed it, heard everybody's arguments, and decided they were right and shut up. So I should be counted as opposed.
I've changed to opposed, too--the only reason I was ever for is it seemed like war/politics talk in Natter was getting shut down. That's changed, and Natter now seems like the appropriate place for it.
it's not an actual consensus
Yeah, it's not a consensus consensus but I don't think those actually exist in the real world. It's more a mostly consensus consensus.
On the Bureaucracy front,
we still have no Voting Discussion Thread!
Can we create the threads we have voted in, before proposing new ones of any kind? Come on, people! Where's that happy false consensus?
23 people were against, 9 people were for and 2 were undecided.
From m-w.com
Consensus:
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Those results were not a: general agreement : UNANIMIY and were not b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned - because that would be most of active members. Those results reflect only members who posted on the topic in
this
thread weeks before the actual war.
No vote was taken and not consensus was reached. With all due respect to bitterchick and everyone else who feels this decision was decided,
it wasn't.
I don't think every old decision should be up for re-discussion, but I also don't think it's fair to close off a topic that for all practical purposes was discussed for less than two days (most of it on a Sunday) by the posters in this thread.
