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)

I don't think anyone is kerfuffling (yet). And it's fortunate, certainly, that this particular proposal doesn't involve immediate action, so we can certainly carry on without.

We (collectively) were pretty adamant that we follow the process we laid out when it came to the quorum question. And I agree! But the fact that the opening of Lightbulbs wasn't announced in Press per the process strikes me as potentially related to the lack of a quorum.

I'm going to say not that we necessarily need to revote, though it would be my inclination. But at the very least I don't think the moratorium applies.

I think that that we should proceed through this year's F2F process, then, no sooner than, say, February (so that the holiday stuff is pretty well done), allow the question of when/how to organize the F2F be re-addressed, if someone wishes. That can be a motion if we want.

I agree that there are a number of issues worth discussing surrounding process. However, I think that if we hash them out now, it will further delay and derail the F2F process, which the whole point of the thing was to get going.

Ditto Debet.

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.

DITTO.

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.

Thank you. And yes, this please. Seriously, my purpose was to put a system in place to ensure that we get a F2F vote early enough to ensure more people have time to save/plan to come. I see no reason why we can't do it unofficially this year. As I said, I will re-propose in six months for future gatherings. Also, I didn't realize that it was my job to post in Press (I thought that was part of the Stompy process), so that's my bad. No harm, no foul. Truly. No reason we can't move forward as far as I'm concerned.

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)

I'm not offended, but I don't see it as toothless. I believe that putting an official timeline and system in place will have a measurable impact on the viability and attendance of future F2Fs. That's why I proposed it.

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.

Actually, I had stipulated that we use November this month, so it would have made that official instead of hand-wavey. But again, not worth keruffling about, especially since I'm the one who was supposed to post in Press and failed to do so.