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
So posting the poll with such a short time frame didn't have anything to do with actually needing an answer right away, it had more to do with the people who were around wanting to get it over with. Which is fine, I guess that's the voted-on procedure, but if the desire was to get participation, the process for this vote did a lot of discourage it, not facilitate it.
If you feel that way, I think the issue would stand for every vote. I don't think that someone made a choice to try and exclude people, they were just following our rules (which are admittedly not posted, but I think we are working on that). In that case, we could definitely have a proposal to discuss a change.
we seem to have a BS consensus on this.
we seem to have a BS consensus on this.
A BS consensus
and
a seven year-old vote. It's like the Buffista way, squared.
So if you check in less than every four days, you've always known you risk missing notification and discussion of a vote.
Discussion. But part of the rationale for the seven days was that even if you do check in only on one day a week, you will not miss anything entirely. You may have to just read through discussion, but you'll have your opportunity to vote.
I am hugely sorry to have been a part of raising this brouhaha. I personally had a hugely shitty week and didn't have the headspace, but it had nothing to do with the timeframe being inadequate or misunderstood.
I am hugely sorry to have been a part of raising this brouhaha. I personally had a hugely shitty week and didn't have the headspace, but it had nothing to do with the timeframe being inadequate or misunderstood.
Buh? You mean, because you were one of the people who didn't vote? Don't beat yourself up!
Don't beat yourself up!
This.
Seriously, of all the votes not to have a quorum on, this is the perfect one, because if people want to enact the proposal,
nothing is preventing them
from going to F2F and getting the ball rolling.
Seriously. All you have to do is act like it passed, and voila! It's not like you're forced to disobey the verbiage, or anything.
Speaking of verbiage, does anyone have a problem with me posting in Press about submitting suggestions for additions to the FAQ?
Sophia kindly sent in stuff for the new legal speak section, but I'm sure there are other terms that should probably be added.
All you have to do is act like it passed, and voila! It's not like you're forced to disobey the verbiage, or anything.
And even if it had passed, it's not like the cat herding would have been any easier.
I almost did not vote, but somehow managed to get around to it. Then I thought "maybe I should remind people", but did not get around to it. (So, you could argue its really all my fault.) At any rate the simple solution to avoid not reaching quorum in the future is for supporters of a proposal to remind others to vote. Go ahead, nag.
