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
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.
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.
Per Cheesebutt, it's the proposer who posts in Press, if we're talking "letter of the law."
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.
I don't know if each part of this checklist is strictly required for validity, but it's the process we agreed on, according to the discussion outlined here:
Someone with a community decision to propose may discuss it preliminarily in Bureaucracy, but should signal with bold font and officious-sounding language when he/she is formally proposing. "More than one Buffista [is] needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote. [The] minimum number of people who have to agree [in Bureaucracy] with the original proposer before a proposal moves to formal discussion [is] 4." (Press #367) These four agreeing people ("seconds") need not want the proposal to pass; they are merely agreeing it needs to be brought to a vote.
Upon the proposal being seconded enough times, the discussion moves to "a separate thread for actual voting discussions." (Press #415) This thread is now called "We're Screwing In Light Bulbs, AIFG!" (Nutty). Only a Stompy Foot may open Light Bulb. The opening of Light Bulb begins with a repost of the proposal, and a post in Press, by the proposer, announcing the proposal under discussion and supplying a link to Light Bulb. In this thread, the proposal is picked apart and debated from the moment the proposal makes its seconds until Midnight (board time) of the fourth full day of discussion.
Seven days' time is sufficient to discuss the issue. The week would be broken down thusly: Discussion: Days 1, 2, 3, and 4. Voting: Days 5, 6, 7. When there is a conflict for major holidays (to be defined) we will make accommodations (to be defined) as needed. We will vote later on whether discussions end on day 4 or continue during the votes. (Press #367) This was decided subsequently (Press #415), that discussions do end on day 4, and a Stompy Foot closes the discussion until the next proposal is seconded, according to procedure.
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.
I agree. I think we should revote this one. The seven day structure was decided for a reason, and if you don't happen to be subscribed to F2F or Bureau, that wasn't really the case on this one.
I'm confused as to why we are having this discussion instead of just going ahead and doing what was proposed and planning the F2F.
Won't a kerfuffle here just take away from that?
Perhaps an announcement was forgotten, but if you read the post Jon linked to regarding the vote, it wasn't part of the vote on the discussion and voting.
I know Pix put a lot of energy into herding the cats last year. I appreciate her actions and those of others who make the F2F happen. I'd rather not have a kerfuffle over her attempts this year to streamline the process. As Perkins says, I'd rather see this energy go towards actually planning the F2F.
I agree. It's already November. Let's plan the F2F, and vote on a specific date to start the process next time in six months.
I'm confused as to why we are having this discussion instead of just going ahead and doing what was proposed and planning the F2F.
Thank you, Perkins! The proposal, as well-meaning as it was, was toothless. There is absolutely nothing we'd be doing differently had it gotten enough votes, other than pointing to it and saying "hey, we ought to get moving on choosing a location and dates!" So let's do that.
(I hope Pix doesn't take this as a criticism. I was for the proposal; sometimes cats need a little shove to get herded)
