Er, if the onus of writing the proposal/ballot falls on the proposer, then it's the proposer who decides whether there is a multi-answer question, and how to vote on it.

Thus, the issue's been consensed around. Unless that consensus isn't, in fact, workable? Basically, it's a case-by-case situation.

Is that an accurate representation of the current thinking?

I've read over the discussion both here and in voting. It looks to me like we're getting something worked out over the current proposals, so I'm not going to touch that.

I do want to address one thing. I've heard the phrase 'old Buffista consensus' being applied to getting an informal majority on the boards. I strongly disagree with this usage.

Consensus meant that everyone posting agreed on the compromise. Someone would say, "It seems like there's consensus for: x" and we'd all say, "yea" if there was, or hash it out if there wasn't.

That's what consensus means. That we all settled on a choice that was mutually acceptable. Not that it pleased each person mightily. But that we could all live with it. Sometimes it meant we had to make the choice to live with something we disagreed with. But we felt that we'd survive the choice, and wanted the community to move forward. So we consensed.

There were problems with this. One was that since consensus happened spontaneously, we missed some people due to timing. (The midnight thread-namers what names at midnight, for example.) Two was that sometimes people just shut up, instead of agreeing to agree or disagreeing. They then felt alienated by the process or overrun. This is our fault as a community by not making the discussion feel open, but the posters also have responsibility, because if we don't voice our opposition, how will anyone ever know? But the result was that people felt consensus, as it stood, didn't work.

So we're voting now, and you know, that's fine. We now have winners and losers. We now have majorities and minorities. I'd have preferred if we still had community agreement (even if it's just agreement to live with the decision), but that's okay. We have a way to make conclusions, and that's a good thing.

What I don't want to get lost is that consensus wasn't just informal voting on the boards. It was a mentality. A process. A way to debate with wit, and to concede with grace. So please don't say, "that's the old Buffista consensus" when we disagree, but with a majority, on the boards. Because it isn't.

I just want to take a moment to thank Jon for the ballot set-up, and mention how much of a dork I am. I'm all excited that the votes are being sent to votes@buffistas.org, and going right into the little folder I set up in my personal account. So fun!

You're welcome Jesse.

It was a mentality. A process. A way to debate with wit, and to concede with grace.

So worth repeating.

Thank you Jon for the form. Thank you Sophia for the ballot and all the shepherding.

Thank you Buffistas for coming back again over and above your annoyance and making nice.

Yes. Thank you Jon, Sophia, and Cindy.

And thank you Liese for the shout-out to the midnight thread-namers what renames at midnight. Just be thankful we don't like monkeys.

Having the proposer create the ballot is good. We're lucky people have been volunteering to do it. I thought about helping Sophia out with one last night and it seemed like a lot of work.

Just be thankful we don't like monkeys.

Also so worth repeating. ;)

I have a doubt about the latest vote, specifically about this paragraph:

After a proposal, discussion and vote, further discussion on a given matter should be closed for 6 months. If this initiative passes, we agree at 3 months from the day (date) the poll closes, to take a vote of confidence on this decision (only), to see if we think 6 months is too long, too short, or just right.

So, this means that if this vote passes, further decisions made by vote will have effect for 6 months... unless 3 months after this vote we decide that the period of 6 months isn't valid. Right?

In that case, doesn't that make the effective validity of any further decisions we make by vote 3 months, instead of 6? I mean, if 3 months from now we decide that "6 months" is a too long period, is that decision retroactive?

I haven't been in the Lightbulb thread for weeks, so I don't know if the mere mention of this question has made several people reach for the razorblade (down, not across). In that case, please direct me to the adequate posts.

I took the "(only)" to mean that we wouldn't revisit any other decisions until six months had passed.