I was seconding grandfathering pre-vote decisions. I didn't see an actual proposal for one Lightbulb topic at a time; I thought that was already implied.
I get confused. I remember everything. I remember too much, and... some of it's made up, and... some of it can't be quantified, and... there's secrets.
River ,'Safe'
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
Hil R. - Mar 20, 2003 8:38:39 pm PST #8484 of 10001
Sometimes I think I might just move up to Vermont, open a bookstore or a vegan restaurant. Adam Schlesinger, z''l
Sophia Brooks - Mar 20, 2003 8:38:40 pm PST #8485 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
We're seconding Betsy's grandfather.
DavidS - Mar 20, 2003 8:39:06 pm PST #8486 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
or grandfathering pre-vote decisions?
This, I think. So once we establish the waiting period it will apply to decisions arrived pre-voting by consensus. That seems fair.
Jessica - Mar 20, 2003 8:42:33 pm PST #8487 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
Okay, then I second too. Or, whichever number we're up to by now.
But we can't Lightbulb it for another week, right?
Betsy HP - Mar 20, 2003 8:43:15 pm PST #8488 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
Right. One proposal in the Lightbulb at a time.
Wolfram - Mar 20, 2003 8:44:07 pm PST #8489 of 10001
Visilurking
No offense but its barely been 5 hours since I've proposed the war thread, and even if it gets a fourth, it's now two weeks away from discussion and three weeks away from the end of a ballot under the current one discussion at a time proposal. (Notwithstanding it getting mooted by this second proposal - although "decided" needs to be defined.) This is the kind of irrational thinking that we were doing away with in the first place by structuring a formal system. Am I the only one who thinks reasonableness should be a necessary factor here?
Nutty - Mar 20, 2003 8:44:11 pm PST #8490 of 10001
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."
Right. If I just just codified the rules we were consensing on, no point in breaking them already.
Edited to add: but Wolfram, (a) this is an uncommon circumstance, since we're still working out the kinks of the system; and (b) not being able to get a fourth for your proposal might be a sign that it's not ready for the Voting Thread yet. Try it again next week, or in two weeks, and maybe you'll get the seconds you need.
Sophia Brooks - Mar 20, 2003 8:44:43 pm PST #8491 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
Well, except we've had up to 4 votes on a ballot before. It seems related, as is the thing that just came up in the voting tread about whether discussion are tabled (US sense) if not enough seconding is done)
Betsy HP - Mar 20, 2003 8:45:23 pm PST #8492 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
This is the kind of irrational thinking that we were doing away with in the first place by structuring a formal system.
Are you confusing "irrational" with "disagrees with me"?
There's nothing inherently irrational about discussing one thing at a time. There is nothing inherently irrational about discussing items in the order in which they are formally accepted for discussion.
jengod - Mar 20, 2003 8:46:58 pm PST #8493 of 10001
Yeah, back to what I was talking about...
Can we, as somebody said, move COMM "above the fold"?
I love my COMM, and I no want to scroll.
And I still think my proposed rearrangement was BRILLIANT (and hot!) but it's okay, I can let it go. I'm cool. Like Fonzie. And, for that matter, Fozzie Bear.