Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
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
Wolfram, all due respect in return, but have you watched the Buffista decision-making process in action? If the topic didn't have enough steam to be really and truly discussed, then it failed to go any further. If we talked about it for 400 posts, and some said yea and some nay, but enough said yea often enough, then it went further and eventually got created. Witness: the music thread.
And anyway, the large majority at the time were against, and the minority didn't pursue it. That's a decision made, and that means in all fairness that we shouldn't be re-making it just because of changes in procedure now.
I think we should have a formal discussion thread opened ASAP.
The last thread name anyone liked was "Big Whoop" or something? Or you can use mister pointy to try to find something Buffy related.
I don't have a position on war thread/non-war thread.
Wolfram, I think you've missed the point with that Consensus/unanimity thing. That
was
the old system. I don't think it's right to challenge it after all the trouble we went to to create a voting system for
future
decisions.
there's an overwhelming sentiment in favor and none of the opposers are bitter about it
How do you know no one was bitter? Frankly, I shut up about it because I'm a fairly new poster and didn't know how things were done/decided on the board. Also because I didn't feel like becoming known as the squeaky wheel.
We didn't all, 100%, agree on naming the board the Phoenix.
Don't get me started.
We didn't all, 100%, agree that there should be no graphics
Pictures of people? There were technical and financial reasons for that.
John, I wasn't criticizing either of those decisions; rather, I was pointing out that neither was Quaker-meeting level of consensus, where nobody disagreed.
I'm a fairly new poster and didn't know how things were done/decided on the board.
And what I am trying to say is that the way that particular decision was handled WAS the way things were decided on the board. I raised it, people chatted about it, most of the people were against it, so we stayed with the status quo.
I much preferred Cindy's "Lightbulb AIFG". I just think "No Big Whoop" is starting the thread off with a discouraging word, not to get all "Home on the Range" on you.
And really, I prefer "Whip Appeal", but since Babyface ain't getting no love around here, I will reluctantly throw my support behind "Lightbulb". Just please get the thing up and running.
OKAY! ONWARD!
Voting Discussion: Speak Softly and Carry a Big Whoop (or)
Voting Discussion: Let's waste time with a lively debate! (or)
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG! (or)
tag: A thread open only to discuss proposals on the floor for voting. If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
Blurb: We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy. (Which we voted on!)
Makes your decisions and implements this or something similar! Before I get home and turn on my machine! That is all!
Nutty Has Spoken!
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG! (or)
Of those three, I would choose this one.
OKAY! ONWARD!
Have I told you lately that I love you, Nutty?
Nutty Has Spoken!
And I'm quite ready to obey her!
That's a decision made, and that means in all fairness that we shouldn't be re-making it just because of changes in procedure now.
The point Gandalfe and I are trying to get across is we want to discuss it because of, among other reasons,
changes in circumstances,
not changes in procedure. There's a war on now. The way I read the discussion, it didn't close off the necessity of a thread, the "consensus" was it wasn't needed
at that time.
I'm not trying to loophole an old issue b/c of new voting methods. If we were under the old method I'd bring it up now as well. You cannot use the new "closing discussion on an issue rule" to close off this discussion without the benefit of the new "voting procedures". It's unfair.
