Deena - your post is good but premature. It belongs in a discussion of the merits of a war thread.

Bitterchick - 3 or 6 mos on this issue is tantamount to a non-issue. Rules are good, but fairness needs to play a role too. Sometimes the rules need to be flexible.

What. Betsy. Said.

We cannot be all things to all people.

Yes, Deena. This. It seems like we're trying to cover too much ground in one community.

There's also the technical ramifications of opening new threads. I'm not going to pretend I understand the architecture of this board but I do know that when we went dark, posting volume was an issue. And it seems the more threads we have, the more posts we make.

Bitterchick - 3 or 6 mos on this issue is tantamount to a non-issue. Rules are good, but fairness needs to play a role too. Sometimes the rules need to be flexible.

And sometimes, you have to follow them, even if you don't like the result.

Wolfram, I was summing up what I perceive as the consensus of the previous discussion, not trying to lobby for or against at this time.

and why, oh why can't I spell consensus??

would be equally annoyed if we reopened the Music thread (which I opposed).

Good point. If we can go back and reconsider our decisions not to do something, logically we might end up reconsidering our decisions to do something.

And, coming in late -- yes, COMM went to the sidebar because it's an archive.

My apologies. I'll delete.

< EDIT > Changed my mind. I'm not going to delete it

Good decision, Gandalfe -- I think it's much better for people to leave their posts up, even if they generated some heat, than it is to delete.

Okay, people, I go away to cook some maple bacon and eat it and play with my idiot cat and what do we do? We start fighting again!! WHAT is with the fighting? Can we PLEASE work on our library voices in this thread?

Okay, consense with me on the procedure we just did. And if it works, we can canonize it into Buffista Law.

1. Person 1 posts in Bureaucracy a formally-phrased proposal 1.

2. Persons 2 through 5 say, "Yes, this proposal 1".

3. Light Bulb is immediately opened for discussion. The midnight after Light Bulb opens is the formal beginning of the 4-day discussion clock. From this point until the discussion clock stops, no other proposals may be formalized. They can be hashed out and maybe even put in queue (?), but not formalized so as not to cause Light Bulb traffic.

4. End of day 4 of discussion. Voting opens for proposal 1. If necessary, proposal 2 may immediately take over Light Bulb, demarcated by someone official marking "Here ends the Light Bulbing of proposal 1. Go vote [link]."

5. Voting results for proposal 1 may come in before the discussion period of proposal 2 is over, under certain circumstances. Therefore, it's a dumb idea to make proposal 2 something contingent on proposal 1, and it's the responsibility of the incredibly brilliant people who read Bureaucracy to notice this before proposal 2 gets to formalization.

(A) Is that what just happened?
(B) Does everybody like that this just happened?
(C) Any suggestions what else should happen instead?

From this point until the discussion clock stops, no other proposals may be formalized. They can be hashed out and maybe even put in queue (?), but not formalized so as not to cause Light Bulb traffic.

For the record I am strongly against this. It puts all other proposals on at least a one week delay if not two, three, four weeks or more. This is a big decision and should not be done by consensus in the span of a few hours on this thread.