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.

Stompie needed in COMM stat. (whitefont emergency)

You know, I was thinking that I liked the idea of a yes no ballot with a survey attached to help gauge how most people are feeling.

For example, if the current ballot passes, the next one (betsy's proposal)might be ( in very simple words)

Should the 6th month moratorium apply to decisions made prior to the official start of voting?

Yes No No pref

SURVEY

If no do you feel that there should be

No Moratorium
A shorter moratorium
A longer moratorium
A forever moratorium

I'll come back and threadsuck and read any replies later, 'cause I have to work now, but I am still bothered by the issue of a vote of 3, 4, or 6, in the span of 15 or 16 hours, turning into a vote on the "one true number of 6," and the numbers 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 - which not one person wanted - being thrown into a survey.

Am I the only one who's bothered by this?