Democracy, which I believe is the most fair system of governance in history, has a couple of problems. One is that the deliberations required for consensus or even majority consensus are imperfect at best and at worst require unsavory compromises and frustrating inefficiencies (such as repeated discussions of pretty much the same issue). Another problem is that smaller, more tight-knit communities are subject to the preferences and whims of the larger masses. This seems to be the major concern of this discussion.

So, maybe we need representational government here to secure the rights and preferences of the long-time b.org community. The Stompies aren't elected, but they implement the decisions of the majority. Maybe instead of always sending every issue out to a general vote, we should have an elected Stompy Advisory Committee who will vote on some issues and choose to send others to the general b.org populace.

Maybe instead of always sending every issue out to a general vote, we should have an elected Stompy Advisory Committee who will vote on some issues and choose to send others to the general b.org populace.

Why don't we table this idea until we settle this one? We are all too likely to go off on a tangent, and that's the last thing we need right now.

I must admit I chafed a bit at some remarks in a Voting discussion (last week I think) that linked to the TV Forum at WX (which I am a forum owner) and used that as an example of what they didn't want buffistas to become. I suppose I took the comment more negatively than it was intended.

I hope my linking didn't give that impression, because it's the opposite situation for me. I use that forum to talk about TV, and it's obviously a different experience for me, but one which absolutely works.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that I've been here the longest, because I think it's cool. I'm never first in anything.

Why don't we table this idea until we settle this one? We are all too likely to go off on a tangent, and that's the last thing we need right now.

I agree.

Dana, I think someone else linked it - a name I didn't really recognize (perhaps you and another linked) and it seemed to me it was linked in a negative way. Perhaps it was a response to your post?

Seems to me that the solution to the governance issue would also address the manifest destiny issue, but maybe that's just me. Fine with tabling.

So, maybe we need representational government here to secure the rights and preferences of the long-time b.org community.

Can we table it possibly forever? Please?

Perhaps we need a cap on the number of individual show threads (no more than 10?) that are opened and close some that don't generate enough discussion

I think the notion's come up, and if we go more to an individual show threads model, it's not a bad notion to keep in mind.

Corwood, your governance suggestion hits me the wrong way. There have to be other alternatives that wouldn't alienate groups of people.

I think it is going to hit a lot of people the wrong way, and would really like to avoid the conversation.

Although a poll will likely cause more navelgazing in some ways, I see no other way to figure out what people think. I think msbelle is going to complile some of the questions, which is a good step.

ok, a start - I am too busy at work to really be doing any more.

7/30 evening: I suggested some poll questions about tv threads and the board.

Bon: I think the poll will be very misleading to the extent that people will seek their short term preferences without considering the larger collective goal.

Me: but if the majority of people have the same short term prefernces....

thing is - from just reading this thread the past day or so, it doesn't seem like there is a strong majority for any particular path. it does feel (like so many other times until voting!) like we are just talking in circles.

SA: However, at this point, I do think a poll would be helpful. Even if it isn't perfect, it would still give us some kind of data which which to proceed onwards with, either to refine our questions or at least to give us a rough number of those involved in this discussion, vocal or not.

David: I think we need to articulate the larger collective goal. I think polls will help us do that. I'm not so interested in what people want. We can always add or subtract stuff later. That process is in place. I would rather the polls addressed why people post here. What show thread environment is interesting to them. How they see the board. How they think it works best. Not just for them but for everybody.

Denise: I'm kind of confused now. I see people stating that what the majority of people may or may not want isn't necessarily what's best for the board. But who gets to decide what's best for the board if not the majority?

Me: some proposed general board questions

David: The discussion itself may change people's minds about what each thread vote means. The polling could clarify what we value most and how it works best.