Let's institute some bullshit consensus on that one, can't we? It's how we've been operating. We've been taking one issue at a time. The issue might spawn mulitiple questions, but first we did voting. Then we did whatever that last thing was. Now we're talking on closing issues.
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
I was going to ask something else but I'll just wait.
I'm not sure I like the idea of one proposal bumping another.
But it's not -- Sophia's is the only one with enough seconds.
I agree with Jess-- let's start the discussion now, and keep the ther times the same.
Sophia's is the only one with enough seconds.
Agreed.
Also, even tho I'm one of the agitators for the war thread, I think that the other issue needs to be resolved first.
Where do we announce the (temporary) opening of LightBulbs? In Press?
Actually, no I will ask this, even if it does make things work---
why are we waiting until midnight if the number of seconds is reached well before midnight? That doesn't make sense.
I mean, right now we have a discussion ready to be moved over to the thread but according to the rules as I think they are right now, we have to wait until midnight to open the discussion. That's just, frustrating is the very least emotion I'm looking at.
I can't imagine what would happen if a topic got enough seconds at 9 am board time.
Yes-- When it is opened, that post I made up thread should be put in Press with an appropraite link to the discussion.
why are we waiting until midnight if the number of seconds is reached well before midnight?
I'm thinking because we will end up closing it at midnight, and that makes an exact number of days? But I agree, it seems silly.