No, the 19th was the beginning of voting, not the beginning of discussion.
Could just be a hoax, though. I fake some headaches, everyone gets used to poor helpless Spike. Then one day, no warning, I snap a spine, bend a head back, drain 'em dry. Brilliant.
Spike ,'Potential'
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
Jesse - Oct 29, 2010 2:49:02 am PDT #4783 of 6786
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
brenda m - Oct 29, 2010 5:30:08 am PDT #4784 of 6786
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
Hang on, Java's got a point. We did miss posting in Press about the opening of Lightbulbs.
Aims - Oct 31, 2010 8:25:47 am PDT #4785 of 6786
Shit's all sorts of different now.
Well, crappity.
Pix did make the following post in the actual F2F thread, which isn't the same, but it was there for folks to see and be able to pop over to B'Craxy and then Lightbulbs:
Pix "F2F5: I forget that everyone isn't us" Oct 14, 2010 6:59:33 pm PDT
Since we seemed to accidentally not follow our own procedures, what do we do?
Jesse - Oct 31, 2010 9:59:48 am PDT #4786 of 6786
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
I still think at this point, it doesn't matter in practice, since the vote wouldn't take effect until next October 1 anyway. So if someone makes a note to re-propose in 6 months, we can re-vote and still start the proposed new procedure at the same time.
Steph L. - Nov 01, 2010 4:40:53 am PDT #4787 of 6786
I look more rad than Lutheranism
Sadly, we need a Stompy to close up the Delurking thread.
Java cat - Nov 01, 2010 9:25:17 pm PDT #4788 of 6786
Not javachik
I'm speechless. The rules weren't followed, the vote was so poorly attended that enough votes to reach a quorum had to be coaxed out of people on line at the time, and it hasn't been re-posted and the vote reopened by now?
I move that the vote be re-posted for notice for four days, and then the vote be re-opened for three days, then closed.
Cass - Nov 01, 2010 10:00:49 pm PDT #4789 of 6786
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.
I'm not precisely sure how the rules weren't followed.
The vote was poorly attended, yes. So was the conversation leading up to it. This happens. We failed to reach a quorum. This also happens.
We had a vote, it failed -- and it was a vote that doesn't matter in the slightest* because it was a vote for something that couldn't happen this year. Therefore our process that allows for a proposal six months later? Makes this proposition crazy easy to re-propose, open Lightbulbs, talk about, and vote on again.
If enough people care and vote, we've got a new b.org ruling. If enough people don't? Well, we don't.
Forty-two people didn't vote. Nothing changes.
*The proposal would not have been enforced this year, we already passed those deadlines.
NoiseDesign - Nov 02, 2010 12:10:02 am PDT #4790 of 6786
Our wings are not tired
I'm not precisely sure how the rules weren't followed.
There was never an announcement in Press that Lightbulbs had been opened. The only announcement in Press was that voting started.
It does seem a bit odd that there is a big push that the letter of the rules be followed about getting quorum numbers while there is very little concern over the fact that the letter of the rules was not followed regarding the announcement in Press.
Jesse - Nov 02, 2010 2:35:06 am PDT #4791 of 6786
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Per Cheesebutt, it's the proposer who posts in Press, if we're talking "letter of the law."
Steph L. - Nov 02, 2010 3:01:18 am PDT #4792 of 6786
I look more rad than Lutheranism
Do the rules (or Cheesebutt [is Cheesebutt "the rules"?]) say that for the voting process to be valid, there must be an announcement in Press that discussion has started on a vote?
I understand that making that announcement is a good thing to ensure that everyone who wants to discuss the issue can discuss it, and I think that's important. I just don't remember the actual rules that make a vote valid/invalid.