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
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.
Everyone wants this proposal to pass, no? Procedures are important, but not set in stone. I think it would be okay to make the following motion to modify the voting rules:
Where a vote does not receive a quorum of 42 within the 3 day voting period, the voting period may be extended for another 3 days at the request of the proposer. This rule has retroactive effect.
Get 4 seconds, discuss. Vote, then if it passes, apply to previous vote.
(Note - I'm not making this motion, only because I have no time to herd it. Just throwing it out there.)
Here's what's really simple--if you want to effect that F2F behaviour, DO IT. It only happens once a year, and there's plenty of time to propose it again for next year.
If you want to weaken or eliminate the quorum, that's a whole different thing. But there is absolutely
nothing
in the way of taking Pix's suggestion, and I don't know why people are disappointed if 42+ people actually want to do it--42+ people do it!
But if you're going to say "If we don't get quorum let's keep going until we get quorum" let's just step up and get rid of the damned quorum. Because there's no point working around it
and
keeping it.
I think that this is a bad idea. Although, this may not be the case in this instance, I think that sometimes proposals don't get the votes because people don't think that the issue needs to be ruled on or they are neutral on the issue. Forcing a vote changes that dynamic.
