No. It bothered me too.

But I felt the group Doblerization was way more important, and whether it was her timing or her persuasive style, Cindy pulled it off. So kudos to her.

And in truth, her proposal as a whole, written against her interests of 3 as the OTN, was pretty much fair. So even though I get your point, I'd advise not focusing on it too much. The greater good was served.

Honestly, everyone's bothered by something at this point.

Well, Sophia proposed it, so she wrote the ballot. There were a couple of ideas floating around Light Bulb before the vote, several of them viable, but we finally decided that consensing was not the way to go and that the proposer should write a ballot and Sophia chose one.

The concept we're voting on is the same; it's just phrased differently from how it was originally intended. And to a certain extent, I suspect that phraasing is a reflection, in the people reading Light Bulb, of the fact that 6 months seemed to be a front-runner.

I can sort of see how such a system could be abused, by writing ballots that are unintelligible or severely biased. But if that ever really turned into a problem, we all could give the ballot a vote of no confidence, by refusing to vote and not making the minimum turnout.

And I think the possibility of revisting 6 (should it win) in three months is the key factor.

Also the vast numbers of non-Kafka-posting Buffistas might want some of those different numbers, and now you'll know which.

It's an imperfect solution (but the best available) to a problem that was tying us in knots. I think six is long, but I'm happy we're at a point where we can pass something.

I'm really very pro the proposer writing the ballot. S/he can listen and listen and persuade and be persuaded, but in the end, one person should write it. As long as the voting mechanism allows for a "no confidence/utter bollocks" option, it's all good.

And if the proposal is badly done and doesn't get the MVT -- whoops! Moratorium anyway. So it behooves the proposer to do a good job.

What ita said.

I'm really very pro the proposer writing the ballot.

Makes sense.

eta: Sweet!

Java, the skinny is... we couldn't decide whether we should put three or four months on the ballot as the alternate to 6 months. I suggested averaging, but it never caught on. Then people tossed out 9 months and other numbers as well. We whittled it back down to 3, 4 and 6, but couldn't agree on a way to do the ballot (preferential, vs. run-off, in case of no clear cut majority).

People were angry with each other.

Since, what ita said is how some of us thought the process would work in the first place, namely:

I'm really very pro the proposer writing the ballot. S/he can listen and listen and persuade and be persuaded, but in the end, one person should write it. As long as the voting mechanism allows for a "no confidence/utter bollocks" option, it's all good.

And if the proposal is badly done and doesn't get the MVT -- whoops! Moratorium anyway. So it behooves the proposer to do a good job.

I suggested to the proposer (Sophia) that we just put 6 months (with an opt-out clause at 3, if we find it's too long) up for a yes/no vote. If six months doesn't get a majority of votes, we'll be back to the drawing board on how to determine how long the moratorium should be. The issue won't be closed, because there won't have been a moratorium.

FWIW, I was a 3 months person. I think 6 is too long. But I hate to see our community fall apart over just putting a more definite method of counting who-likes-what in place.

I hope if/once you read it all, it won't feel so much like it was snuck in there, as that it was proposed when things got desperate and we were almost drawing blood. I don't think the Lightbulb thread was ever supposed to be proposal by committee as much as it was supposed to be a place where once someone's proposal got seconded, we could discuss it, make requests, and give our feedback, and the proposer was free to let us inform her as she refined her ballot.

Those of us who don't like this proposal should just vote no.