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.
'The Girl in Question'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
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
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.
Should I admit here that I voted no as well....
Hee - you voted no on your own proposal. Sophia, that's integrity. I, on the other hand, voted yes on something I think is wrong, just to shut us up. :)
Well-- I was convinced by the 3 people, actually... I was wondering if Jesse caught it when she was counting.
I see all, I know all.
When does the count go up? I've lost track of time.