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.

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.

See, I'm just not so sure about this (and I'm number 14, FWIW). A big part of the impetus for voting at all was to be able to implement the stop-discussion time limit on things that kept coming up, like a politics thread. So my understanding was that we'd throw it up for a vote, it would (most likely) get voted down, and then we'd have an instituted policy that allowed us to prevent it's being brought up again. But I think we're skipping over a step here.

I do think that the war thread was decided against in a way that the politics thread had not - there was fuller discussion, with a fairly large number of people chiming in. And I don't want to get into a situation where everything has to be reconsidered. But when we say that we decided not to revisit these issues, I don't think the evidence holds up. We may have all assumed something, but as far as I can tell we never really discussed it.

The upcoming discussion and vote will settle this, one way or the other. But even though I understand what you and Betsy are saying, and I even mostly agree, I can't get past the feeling that in effect, if not in intent, we're doing an end-run around a proposal that was made within the boundaries of the new system.

A big part of the impetus for voting at all was to be able to implement the stop-discussion time limit on things that kept coming up, like a politics thread. So my understanding was that we'd throw it up for a vote, it would (most likely) get voted down, and then we'd have an instituted policy that allowed us to prevent it's being brought up again.

This was my assumption too.

See, I'm just not so sure about this (and I'm number 14, FWIW). A big part of the impetus for voting at all was to be able to implement the stop-discussion time limit on things that kept coming up, like a politics thread. So my understanding was that we'd throw it up for a vote, it would (most likely) get voted down, and then we'd have an instituted policy that allowed us to prevent it's being brought up again. But I think we're skipping over a step here.

I basically agree with this. I don't think I personally had a clear feeling about how the new procedure would or should affect past decisions.

And honestly, if we think bandwidth is becoming a problem, I reserve my right to move to start eliminating threads.

See, I'm just not so sure about this (and I'm number 14, FWIW). A big part of the impetus for voting at all was to be able to implement the stop-discussion time limit on things that kept coming up, like a politics thread. So my understanding was that we'd throw it up for a vote, it would (most likely) get voted down, and then we'd have an instituted policy that allowed us to prevent it's being brought up again. But I think we're skipping over a step here.

Me, uh, four at this point (unless I'm cross-posting). I don't feel strongly about it, mind you.

See, I'm just not so sure about this (and I'm number 14, FWIW). A big part of the impetus for voting at all was to be able to implement the stop-discussion time limit on things that kept coming up, like a politics thread. So my understanding was that we'd throw it up for a vote, it would (most likely) get voted down, and then we'd have an instituted policy that allowed us to prevent it's being brought up again. But I think we're skipping over a step here.

Me too, actually. I am not sure we discussed it. I think that I thought people wouldn't bring up old issues unless they needed to.

I do know, one of the examples people used when they mentioned eventually taking a vote to end discussions for a period of time was "the war thread". So that may be where our particular feeling of "no - this one is settled" comes from. In fact, Sophia might have used the war thread as an example of something that was closed in some of her early list or ballot posts or issue explanations.

So...are we going with the procedural vote about re-opening consensus decisions or not? Is that next in the que?

Sophia might have used the war thread as an example of something that was closed in some of her early list or ballot posts or issue explanations.

I'm pretty sure she did, because I remember thinking, "Huh, I didn't know that was finalized."

I looked at that post, but IIRC she used it as a theoretical example of what happens after we vote something down. But let me go look and make sure.

#6174

2. HOW we decide things, because I think that will eliminate any of this talking and talking and talking about something until finally we don't decide. Or make a decision because people objecting have left the thread Suggestions

Closed Decisions (ex: War Thread has been voted against, no more requests for 6 months) (This still needs to be dealt with)