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.

Actually to be honest I hadn't thought about it. I assumed that if we decided at three months that 6 months was WAY TOO LONG that we could revisit things. However, I really stole 99% of the proposal from Cindy so maybe she can clear this up and we can clear the language up a bit. .

The reason there is a vote at three months is to make sure we aren't locked in to six months for six months if it turns out to be the wrong thing.

I thought the (only) refered to the fact that we will not be having a vote of confidence on any other vote.

All I meant was, at three months, we'll see how the moratorium feels, talk about it and vote whether we think it's too long, too short, or just right. If "just right" gets a majority, I would imagine things would continue on course. If a majority of us feel it's either too long, or too short, I think we'd have to decide then, how we wanted to handle it, and whether we wanted to do so only going forward or not. This really just gives us an escape clause, if six wins, and if we underestimated how long six months will feel.

Without knowing how we'll feel, it's hard to imagine the hypotheticals, and to me, it's not worth arguing the hypotheticals, either.

Thanks Cindy. I am going to link to this post in Press.

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?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. ;)

Still working on that list of old decisions, BTW.

Will come back when pronouns return.