Criminy, posting for a vote and then closing it THREE DAYS later? Isn't THAT against the rules? I argue that two weeks is a reasonable time to give people with busy lives time to read what it's all about and then have time to vote. Even a week is rushed, but at least more reasonable than three days.
But? There's always a but. When this is over, can we have a big 'but' moratorium?
Fred ,'Smile Time'
Bureaucracy 4: Like Job. No, really, just like Job
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: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura
Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina
Java cat - Oct 25, 2010 11:00:43 pm PDT #4742 of 6786
Not javachik
NoiseDesign - Oct 26, 2010 12:32:19 am PDT #4743 of 6786
Our wings are not tired
I'm pretty sure it's been three days ever since I joined the board.
Sophia Brooks - Oct 26, 2010 2:07:57 am PDT #4744 of 6786
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
One week total- split between discussing and voting. There is some wiggle room to extend the time if there is a reason (decided in the voting thread) like holidays or f2f etc. We did vote on it, so there could be a proposal to change.
Ginger - Oct 26, 2010 3:11:59 am PDT #4745 of 6786
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda
We hashed that out extensively during the development of the voting process. I see no reason to revisit it now, particularly since that's the first objection I recall in the intervening years.
Steph L. - Oct 26, 2010 3:31:58 am PDT #4746 of 6786
I look more rad than Lutheranism
Isn't THAT against the rules?
Explicitly, no. Those ARE the voted-upon rules that have been in place for years.
t edit I don't mean to sound harsh. It's just -- I'm sorry you don't like the time frame, but it wasn't just arbitrarily pulled out of the air, or even bullshit-consensed upon. It's been in place for a long time.
Jon B. - Oct 26, 2010 3:33:30 am PDT #4747 of 6786
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
The original vote on how we vote: Sophia Brooks "Sunnydale Press" Feb 25, 2003 11:55:53 pm PST
And the results: jengod "Sunnydale Press" Mar 3, 2003 12:00:27 am PST
§ ita § - Oct 26, 2010 3:47:31 am PDT #4748 of 6786
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I argue that two weeks is a reasonable time to give people with busy lives time to read what it's all about and then have time to vote. Even a week is rushed, but at least more reasonable than three days.
You're free to put that to a vote, but until then, what we've voted on goes, and has gone for seven years.
WindSparrow - Oct 26, 2010 5:28:57 am PDT #4749 of 6786
Love is stronger than death and harder than sorrow. Those who practice it are fierce like the light of stars traveling eons to pierce the night.
You're free to put that to a vote, but until then, what we've voted on goes, and has gone for seven years.
Traffic patterns have changed, at least in some of the threads I follow. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate the voting period. Alas, I belong in the sad camp of those who meant to vote in the last issue, but did not do so in a timely fashion.
Ginger - Oct 26, 2010 5:33:21 am PDT #4750 of 6786
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda
Traffic patterns have changed, at least in some of the threads I follow.
I don't understand how that would affect voting. If you're subscribed to Press, you know there's a vote.
Jesse - Oct 26, 2010 5:50:38 am PDT #4751 of 6786
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
I think we might have combusted if some of the more contentious discussions had gone on any longer than they did.
I'd be happy to talk about this more if anyone wants to make an actual proposal.