But 23 members or whatever bitterchick's tally was, previously opposed the thread. What about their wishes?

I value them and their opinions too. (And not just because I was one of those 23.)

Okay, sorry for the delay. I didn't find it. That could mean that it wasn't victor (searched on his name) or that running back and forth between two screaming babies kind of screwed up my vision. I know it's in there and if someone wants me to find it, I will, but it will take some time.

The discussion about voting begins at Sophia's Post 5016. I think it's somewhere after that one, though, Sophia could also be right that it's on WX and I may be only thinking I saw it here.

FWIW, yes, the War Thread proposal waas proposed, then the Grandafather Clause proposal was proposed, then the GC proposal achieved formal seconds, then the WT proposal achieved formal seconds.

I think it's only fair that the one that made it to the next part of the obstacle course first should be allowed to go forward first.

That's above and beyond the fact that the GC proposal is a procedural question, and could possibly make the WT proposal moot, and that even without the GC many people here interpret the existing rules as disallowing a WT proposal for some time. All of these may or may not be considerations, depending on your opinion; and it may be that the GC may come off as sour grapes, similarly depending; but the fact is, GC tagged home base first, so it's first in line for the ice cream cones.

Fair?

Nutty, your arguments are good and persuasive. I'm not going to argue the other side, although I believe there are meritorious reasons to put the WT thread first, aside from me just wanting it that way. I concede the order. (See my previous post#8663.)

Searching this thread with the keywords: decided, further, reopen, already, previously, revisit, and one more that I've forgotten, this is the only mention I can find of whether or not previously decided issues can be revisited.

brenda m, 6213:

I'd respectfully suggest that MARCIE has been decided on already. I don't think we want to start opening up settled questions just because we have this new process and certain things already decided just haven't been implemented yet.

And the only response to it was:

PMM, 6214:

MARCIE is on the feature to-do list. Features, IMO, aren't voting matters. They're coding matters.

I don't find any further discussion of this matter. If no one else can find any, then I have to say that I think wolfram's proposal should be taken seriously. I'm also very uncomfortable with the idea of grandfathering it should that proposal pass before the war thread comes up - since it was on the table already, I think it should be exempted.

I'm also very uncomfortable with the idea of grandfathering it should that proposal pass before the war thread comes up - since it was on the table already, I think it should be exempted.

My argument against this is that the second Wolfram proposed the idea, several of us said "Wait a minute, we don't think we signed up to reopen old decisions." The point of order got raised immediately. It seems to me completely fair to decide the point of order before we consider the vote.

This is completely off-topic but I just want people to know I am going dark for a day or so. It has zero to do with this ongoing discussion, and I don't want the discussion to end in my absence, I just won't be responding to stuff. (I can hear the collective sigh of relief.) Don't worry, I'll be back before you've noticed I was gone. Have a good weekend all.

That may be so Brenda, but we could have talked about it without those keywords. I am also willing to bet a litter of Maine Coon kittens that every member of Go14 [note: reference is ironic and self-deprecating] was operating on the presumption that instituting voting would not be used to go back and revisit issues. Why? Because the only way our loose consensus approach worked was to say, "Okay, that's done, what's next?"

Another point I'd like to make, is that while only 30-some people spoke up about a War Thread, it was understood that the consensus probably reflected a fair sampling of community opinion. I'll also note, that by our standards at the time, that was a very strong No vote. It wasn't close and that's another reason I don't want to reopen it.

Believe it or not, so do I. I hate that people are annoyed with me over this. I just see it from the opposite side, that if 5 members have proposed a thread it should be discussed board wide, because I value those members too. That's also the purpose of the voting system. And the board will vote it down or up as the membership sees fit.

But in the past, the five looked at each other and said, "Oh - only 5 of us want this - 23 don't. We'll agree to drop it and try it another way."

For the record, Wolfram, I don't have a problem with you raising these issues. It's fine. And I trust that you are not doing it selfishly, and you're being reasonable.

My argument against this is that the second Wolfram proposed the idea, several of us said "Wait a minute, we don't think we signed up to reopen old decisions." The point of order got raised immediately. It seems to me completely fair to decide the point of order before we consider the vote.

This too. I think this is significant. We don't have a chair recognizing things, but you have to admit that there was a strong and immediate response against re-opening consensus-derived decisions.