That I did not remember. Cheers, aurelia.

Moving this over from Lightbulbs...

I know Wolfram won't be online to discuss his idea for a "thread creation threshold" until after Passover. (An idea that I like a lot, BTW.) But I had a random thought pop into my head as I was reading the Lightbulbs thread and thought I'd toss it out there.

You know how there's always an open enrollment period with benefits? Once or twice a year, you can change your benefits. What about applying a similar policy to thread creation/deletion? Instead of having multiple proposals and discussions throughout the year, we do it twice a year (say, January and July) and discuss all the threads proposed at the same time.

This might improve the process in two areas. First, we reduce the number of times that we have the same conversation to two. I do think the more frequently we talk about yes thread vs no thread, the more weary we all become, which can lead to heightened emotions on both sides. Second, my hope would be that, in discussing all potential threads at once, it would enable us to look at the big picture, see where there's overlap in the proposed threads, etc.

I don't know how anyone else would feel about this idea but I figured I'd toss the idea out there. Some version of this, combined with some version of Wolfram's suggestion, might help things.

Interesting, Kristen. This might be a good solution.

I like the idea, Kristen, but maybe we should shift the months a little to take into account the tv season. Maybe March and September or something?

Not to dump on a good idea, but I'm remembering some of the time-sensitive votes we were supposed to have in the past, and... actually I think we didn't do a single one of them on time. So the idea of scheduling a "plan" period is admirable, but might not be practicable.

We're the people who had the grandfathering legislation pending for months, just sitting there with nobody willing to push it all the way through. It didn't get dealt with till it was actively getting in the way of some other vote going forward. (And boy was that a kerfuffle!) We were supposed to do a gut-check vote on how long the moratorium period should be, 3 months after we voted it in, and we... just never did it. We just never did. It was technical, procedure-y, an unemotional detail, but...

I think I am saying that there's a good chance we might be, as a community, too cheerfully half-assed to stick to a schedule.

My only fear re: an open enrollment period is MASSIVE OVERFLOW!

I work in an HR place, currently. Open Enrollment is Hell Time. SO MUCH is happening, it's craziness.

However, that's not really applicable here. I mean, we won't be dealing with several hundred confused steelworkers trying to figure out their dental plan. I do think there is a legitimate concern that there will be a large amount of saved up proposals bursting forth all at once and the discussion will be confusing and weird.

My idea for easing the process is cutting the discussion time in half. In the beginning four days seemed to be a goodly amount of time for serious consideration and reasoned debate. Now, as Jessica pointed out in Lightbulbs, it feels like an endurance test.

People seem pretty set in their positions. They will either, based on their personal board ideologies, argue against, argue for or examine the thread proposal as a discrete entity. The purpose of the debate period is to try and sway people to your way of thinking, but at this juncture I don't think we need four days. If you're not convinced in the first two, you're probably not going to be.

Now. I hear I'm supposed to provide "final wording" for my thread proposal before it goes to a vote. Where do I post that? Here, or in Lightbulbs?

My idea for easing the process is cutting the discussion time in half. In the beginning four days seemed to be a goodly amount of time for serious consideration and reasoned debate. Now, as Jessica pointed out in Lightbulbs, it feels like an endurance test.

Some people can only post on weekends and some evenings; others can only post on weekdays. The four day period was designed to make sure everyone has a chance to comment.

Also, nearly all the posting this time around happened in the first two days. It wasn't until after the first two days that things (volume and tempers) calmed down. If we limited the discussion to only two days I think we'd have even more bitter feelings, not less.

Now. I hear I'm supposed to provide "final wording" for my thread proposal before it goes to a vote. Where do I post that? Here, or in Lightbulbs?

Lightbulbs, please.

Man, I just checked Lightbulbs. There's 350 posts since I last looked. Most of it doesn't seem to be the merits of a game thread or not, but the thread proliferation issue again. We need to address that somehow.

Uhm, I've no idea how.

MM- you post in Lighbulbs, and there will be a press anouncement when it is open for vote.

I was thinking the same thing about the length of the period, but part of that length is so that everyone who visits the board has time to see it and have their say before it goes to vote. And for people who don't access the board on the weekend, and/or are around the world, 4 days seems a minimum. I was thinking perhaps we should restrict the number of posts a poster can make, but that seems very restrictive and fascist state. maybe we should think about self restricting. Or restricting to the vote at hand only.

The wat the discussion works the best, IMO, is if it is somewhat self moderated by either the proposer or a neutral party. That is, every so many posts, if someone sums up the discussion so far, in neutral language, and makes a suggestion about rewording the proposal. The problem with this is that it is quite painful for that person (I did it for the first few votes, and it did change my relationship with the board). I think the reason it works, though is that it helps to minimize ineffective discussion that just serves to make other buffistas angry. And I get that it is hard to be a neutral summer-upper when you yourself are angry (I personally had a really hard time understanding the position of people who were against voting, but I tried really hard to sum things up neutrally).

So, I have no suggestions of merit, I guess, just some thoughts