Can we move the voting thread to the right-hand box? With Bureaucracy, Press and etc.?

See previous mention. There's a bug.

I've mentioned it in BBB, too.

We introduced a voting system because people weren't happy with the old "consensus" system, but we never said decisions of the old system could be revisited.

But you're making the decision to not revisit old "consensus decisions" by consensus, which is the old way. The new way would be to vote:

Should decisions made previously by consensus be closed or open to voting under the new voting mechanism?

I think only ita and/or Jon B can do that.

you may want to post the request in BBB

I have to go. I'm not dropping my stance and I'm not withdrawing my motion. I can appreciate the reluctance to revisit old topics but if the Firefly thread hadn't opened, and a several weeks later the Firefly posts in other threads had just gotten rampant would you agree that the Firefly discussion had been closed for a signficant period of time, or would the issue have been revisited? I don't believe there was a "closing of issues" under the old system. I repeat, you can't close out an issue that wasn't really decided in the first place, and if people had known this was an all or nothing decision I daresay more people would have weighed in at the time. We're not talking about a Clem thread. This is a serious issue, and I feel it warrants serious discussion, not to just be shut down because people are afraid of re-opening old topics. We'll move it into a discussion thread and stop cluttering Bureaucracy with it if it gets a fourth. Then it can be fairly decided. Do you really want to dismiss this motion summarily without hearing from the bulk of the Buffistas on it?

I know this was something of a ramble but I'm getting the feeling that a small percentage of posters is getting the power to cut off a discussion because they are active posters.

Yay, Plei! Thank you.

Why are we moving the discussion whether to have a discussion into the discussion thread? I thought the discussion thread was supposed to be open only when a motion had four seconds and was being discussed prior to a vote?

We aren't, Wolfram. At least not as far as I know. We're opening the thread because the vote went through to create it, and now we're prepped for any future discussions that do get there.

Um. I know we just opened this snazzy new thread but who else seconded Wolfram's motion? I only saw two.

We aren't moving the discussion, are we? I think we are just opening the thread.

Regardless of anything else, there is no forth for the proposal.