In addition to what Hec said, in its purest form, the idea of voting was not to over bureaucratize bureacracy, it was suggested

• So that it would be easier to count whether more people wanted something or not

• So that we could stop bringing up a suggestion that had been repeatedly shot-down, at least for a period of time.

I think we have to remember it wasn't installed as a change in how we do things, as much as it was instituted as a tool to more easily and accurately measure what we do do (as opposed to our current deep doodoo). I still think we can make it our tool rather than our master, if we're willing, and once all this process trivia is nailed down, that's all it has to be. And that's why decisions that have already been made (even in the negative) should be respected for X amount of time.

So, pending issues I'd like to talk about, sometime soonish. Ganked from Sophia, the Queen Of Staying On Message.

Review threads for redunancies, obsolete threads and possibly joining threads together (will this actually help anything technically? Although it might stop arguements FOR thread prolif)) This is the only one that I think needs community input. Other issues are more technical.

To do. This and the general "how proliferate are threads? Can we combine them/any?" are sort of a long-term thing, I would say, unless the database size is becoming a problem again.

Closed Decisions

Working on it, with the current proposal, and the pending "Grandfather clause" one proposed by Betsy.

basically a thread to announce a proposal, dicuss it for a limited period of time, and then vote.)

Done! At last!!

MARCIE (seems like people are for. Also I thought it was a done deal)

I think it was a done deal, so I'm happy to grandfather it in (a la Betsy's pending proposal). It's just the technical stuff that's a problem now, so I'm willing to call this issue out of Bureaucracy and into BABB.

Firmer guildines for stompies and/or more power to stompies.

We still do need to talk about this. I think a lot of personal stories by Stompies, and general discussion, might be warranted before we're ready for any kind of direct proposals. We're reasonably aware there are ambiguities and gray areas, but I don't think we've talked about this enough for a solution to be clear yet. Convene Monday? Stompies, are you willing to share?

5a. Helping new users become acclimated:

Some of this is technical, some just points of order. I think keeping track of and keeping in HTML format the Buffista Voting Process will be a good thing for all our brains. Sophia, would you like help on that? I can proof, or chase down stuff, over the weekend.

What is the scope of our community? ( is this possible to vote on?)

I suspect no. We can talk about it till the cows come home, however, which is a very Buffista thing to do and will live-givingly affirm our need to exist and Buffista-wank into the exalted future!

As far as I can see, allowing previous decisions reached by whatever methods to be open for resmooshing has very little in the way of pros, even including the decisions I disagree with. Because we'd be yanking at the yarn that put what we have so far together.

Now, I'm very pro making sure that all our decisions from day forward are clearly announced, up for dedicated discussion, tallied over a long enough period for most people to get a shout in edgewise, and then let be for a predictable length of time. That's why I voted for a vote.

Not because I thought the decisions we'd made before were faulty, inasmuch as the methods were perhaps not representative.

In the calmer light of day, I do wonder if the POV that means we can re-examine the war thread also thinks that any and all previous decisions are up for re-examination, and if so, why that's not potentially deleterious.

Cereal! My first ever in Bureaucracy:

So I think appealling to the emotional is not an unfair thing to do because the emotional side of who we are is part of who we are.

It can, however, be a wicked disruptive thing to do. And it can throw us all off-topic, if used uncautiously. I can certainly understand appeals to emotion as a tool in the persuasion toolbox, but it's the undiplomatic ranting that only makes more feelings get hurt that bothers me. I see it a lot in this thread recently, hence my appeal for library voices.

You know, saying things that are emotionally true, but not shouting them in everyone's ear.

Decent, reasonable people can disagree, vehemently. Courteous people can disagree vehemently without casting aspersions on their opponents' reasoning power.

You rang?

Okay, username joke. Because you can't disagree Nutty, only nuttily. See? Adverbs are good!

FYI, we were linked to at Whedonesque again.

Adverbs are bad!

Show, don't tell!

You incompetent ficcer, you!

That's frustrating. Didn't we ask them to stop?

I've seen links to that post in about 6 different large BTVS forums.

I think we need to add "Doblerize" to the FAQ.

My proposed version (hack at will):

In Say Anything, the hero, Lloyd Dobler, confronts a friend who is drunk and being difficult. Dobler gets in his face and shouts "You. Must. Chill!" So to Doblerize is to tell somebody (possibly yourself) to calm down and step away from the ugly bag.

Brain: sieve. What's a sieve again?

[edited to add movie title]

Say Anything is the title.