So I'm asking those of you who can be objective on this
Care to define that list?
When you look back at this, in the three seconds it'll take you to turn to dust, I think you'll find the mistake was touching my stuff.
Buffy ,'Lessons'
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
Betsy HP - Mar 20, 2003 9:03:09 pm PST #8522 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
Sophia Brooks - Mar 20, 2003 9:04:33 pm PST #8523 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
What i meant was that a consensus is technically every single person agreeing. If someone wants to sit here and srgue that we never made a consensus because there were always dissenters, we are going to be here until the next millenium. If has been discussed previoudly and either action or no action was taken-- it has reached Buffista consensus.
P.M. Marc - Mar 20, 2003 9:05:07 pm PST #8524 of 10001
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
Wolfram, cool it, you're getting to be really, really insulting here.
DavidS - Mar 20, 2003 9:05:25 pm PST #8525 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
As other people mentioned, theoretically, revisiting this conversation means we can undo things as well. It could all turn into one big mess and we need to consider that before we open ourselves up to it.
This. (You know I am so chuffed to be in agreement with bitterchick, but that's like the fifth time in two days.)
If we can't agree on what makes a consensus. how do we know what we decided by the old method?
Madness! Madness I say! Uh, so...this is why we went to voting. And yet, things which were generally agreed upon back before voting (by whatever amorphous methods we used) were still considered done deals. And there seems to be (by that similar eyeballing guesstimate method) some feeling that the most fair and least disruptive thing to do would be to apply the waiting period currently under discussion to issues recently decided under the old consensus method.
The logic being not dissimilar to giving weight to the rule of precedent so that there is continuity and not constant disruption. This is a very worthy value.
bitterchick - Mar 20, 2003 9:05:37 pm PST #8526 of 10001
Care to define that list?
Oh, I know I'm at the top of it.
John H - Mar 20, 2003 9:05:43 pm PST #8527 of 10001
If we don't agree that previously-arrived-at decisions are closed, that way lies madness.
Doesn't everyone agree that's so?
All the time you've been here discussing this, Wolfram, you could have been discussing the war. In Natter.
bicyclops - Mar 20, 2003 9:05:51 pm PST #8528 of 10001
If something was proposed and discussed for some length of time, then either action was taken on it or a decision was made not to take action.
What length of time?
How do we differentiate between "no action was taken" and "a decision was made to not to take action"?
There may have been many things mentioned, dicussed even, where no action was taken. How many of these things are a "decision" which can't be discussed again for months?
Wolfram - Mar 20, 2003 9:06:28 pm PST #8529 of 10001
Visilurking
Care to define that list?
I only know I'm not on it. :)
DavidS - Mar 20, 2003 9:07:25 pm PST #8530 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
The active posting group (APG)
Let's not do this anymore, okay? Can we not try to label people as Go14 or APG or some such? I know we get frustrated and sometimes people feel cornered or not heard, but I really dislike this.
Hil R. - Mar 20, 2003 9:07:34 pm PST #8531 of 10001
Sometimes I think I might just move up to Vermont, open a bookstore or a vegan restaurant. Adam Schlesinger, z''l
So I'm asking those of you who can be objective on this - does it make sense for an extremely relevant topic to be tabled indefinitely the way the war thread has without any recourse to the active posting community at large?
Yes. Especially because of the "extremely relevant" part. We've got no idea if the thread will even be needed a week from now. (Well, we have some ideas, but can't know for sure.) And it's not being tabled indefinitely, it's being table for a set period of time. And the "active posting community at large" is perfectly able to come in here and post. Anybody who doesn't has chosen not to.