Xander ,'Selfless'
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
Perhaps we don't discuss crafting the ballot-- perhaps the proposer crafts the ballot and if we don't like it, we say no.
And Sophia, I'm really sorry that since you took on the role of proposer that so much of the bullshit has seemed like it was centering on you.
I agree. Sophia, since your idea got the requisite seconds, how about you finalize a ballot of your choosing? We vote it up or down on its own merits and end this gridlock.
I'd like to see 6 months go up for a vote and see what people think of that. I like the 3 month gut check in case it passes.
However, somehow we have moved the endless circular discussion to crafting a ballot.
Sophia is wise.
Perhaps we don't discuss crafting the ballot-- perhaps the proposer crafts the ballot and if we don't like it, we say no.
Yes, I like this. I think the proposer may be thoughtful enough to take into account the comments of others, such that the initally proposed ballot and the final, voting ballot may differ in wording or method somewhat, but that the onus of all this should be on the proposer, since presumably the proposer has a stake in the vote going forth to a conclusion.
If we the voters think the ballot is sucky, we vote with our non-votes.
So to speak.
Except I am really unable to post much this morning until after 2 pm (I just got out of a meeting and am going to another one).
I also just realized that I posted the proposal to get us OUT of a circular discussion, which is why it was pretty nebulous!
Anyhoo. I like Cindy's proposal re: 6 months.
I'm so confused. Is the ballot that's linked to in Press actually counting something? Because, as it turns out, you can use it to vote for your first choice twice, which seems to not be the point of an instant run-off.
I am also in favor of the proposer crafting the ballot, and being able to accept or reject changes as he/she sees fit.
I was unaware that there was a link to a ballot in Press. If it is my post, it is a typo!
I linked the proposed ballot - so people could see what it looks like. I SPECIFIED it's a PROPOSED one. If people aren't reading the post before clicking the link they should be shot.
Okay, maybe not shot. Spanked?
edited to clarify...
The above was an attempt at being funny with a fake-overreaction. Feedback indicates it bombed, horribly. I am sorry. Didn't mean to upset anyone, and didn't mean to offend. I'd edit it out, but I don't want to make folks look crazy.
Cindy, I read the post, and I think you're being a bit harsh in your tone, there.
The ballot does not currently stop you from voting for the same thing twice. If you can do that, there's no point to the runoff, is there? That was my point. Please chill.
you can use it to vote for your first choice twice, which seems to not be the point of an instant run-off.
Oooh. I hadn't thought of that. In any case it's a moot point since it looks like the instant runoff is dead for now.
Another vote for proposer crafts the ballot, with the caveat (maybe obvious), that there always has to be a "no" or "none of the above" vote. For instance, the ballot couldn't just say "choose between 3 or 6 months" because then you disenfranchise folks who want neither. "No preference" is not the same option in this case.
Cindy, I read the post, and I think you're being a bit harsh in your tone, there.
I was trying for funny, Michele. Sorry I came across badly. I am very chilled and didn't mean to unchill your or anybody else.