Okay, no offense to any lurkers, but if that's the case I say who the hell cares? I'm far more concerned with the experience of the 60-70.

This statement bothers me. I don't want to be part of a community that says, "Well, we've been here forever, so our opinion counts more than yours, you n00b. Forget that we were new once, this our sandbox, and just because you're here doesn't mean you're as good as we are."

That may be the way of the world, but it's not a part of the world I'm happy playing in.

I don't think this is a short term desire, and I don't think the discussion I have been in thus far has been about trying to create a board experience from elsewhere here at the b.org. This is evident to me in that we've been discussing this on and off for years, and that the conversation *keeps* coming up, and it is apparent that there is a desire there for some members. I think the question isn't about fundamentally changing the board at all; rather, it is fleshing out something that was already there. (Though I recognize that people disagree with me on this.) For me, this is relatively simple: we have been talking about television since day one. We have created separate threads for television that caught our fancy in a particular way, but never made a provision for talking about television generally, which was fine. Now we're given the opportunity to address this in a careful and inclusive manner, of which the first step is a poll, which may or may not be helpful.

I suppose I don't see how this is damaging to the community, because for me it's like watching something new grow.

And not to stick it out with individual experiences again, but there were entire years of uni for me where I didn't use Bitches or Natter at all. I read the right-hand threads, and the handful of movies/tech/music/whatever threads. But my user experience is directly tied to those threads first, Natter and Bitches very second. I find it problematic when people call those threads the soul of the board, because I am never in either of those threads anymore (except the occasional dalliance) and I consider myself a member of this community and this discussion.

Which, I guess, goes back to the business about the poll. If my user experience--and more importantly, my member experience--differs from others member experience in important ways, I think we would be remiss if we didn't try to find some common ground. Or if not common ground, than something approaching more satisfying for our members.

bon, I only mention your anxiety because....

I am feeling a real drive here to CHANGE things in ways that will fragment this community too far.

I do feel like I'm actually taking a more conservative stance, despite my request for polling.

And really I find your anxiety endearing in a "Bon really cares!" way.

brenda! ::waves hands in the air:: Could you look at the questions I posted, and the Shirky quotes I included? Do they articulate the issues for you, particularly about core members?

Cor! Does the core members notion relate to your idea of governance? Not to revisit the issue, but doesn't it basically acknowledge the same thing?

Bev! Do you think density is a useful notion for how to view these issues? Do you think that's the right question to ask?

Cindy! Is this very far off the discussion you thought we were having? Because I do think the meta question is what's on the table now, more than just one particular thread, or even the experimentals.

I need to think about it a bit more, but I'm liking the sound of what Sean's just laid out.

As this discussion goes on, I'm getting less and less inclined to change anything.

I love the idea of a huge, wide ranging poll. But I think it be of value mostly for curiousity's sake, and trying to suss out where I'm in the mainstream or not. I do not see it (nor would I support it) as any kind of action item - bon's example of a bunch of things all having a range of support seems to me more likely to result in no action than a passel of new stuff.

So maybe what I like is the idea of a poll with something like Sean's idea to prevent too much of it from ever actually happening.

I don't want to be part of a community that says, "Well, we've been here forever, so our opinion counts more than yours, you n00b. Forget that we were new once, this our sandbox, and just because you're here doesn't mean you're as good as we are."

I didn't read that this way, connie; I thought it referred to those who care enough to voice their opinions on stuff. How can we discuss the future of the community trying to bear in mind the possible preferences of people who don't let their voices be known?

If there are truly 60-70 people that are considered the "core" group of people, and the majority of those people are worried about what the board will become if there are too many new tv threads (not saying that's so, just if), why wouldn't those people not change their posting habits regardless of whether there was a new tv thread or not? If 60-70 people continued to discuss everything whitefonted in Natter, if that was so important to them, what difference would the tv thread inhabited by however many other non-core people make to their board experience?

I know I keep coming back to this, but it's a collective action problem. Consider the following hypothetical. We all like natter/bitches (henceforth just natter). But each of us could use just one more thread. Now, just one more thread will not really reduce the traffic in natter. The problem is, the one more thread we want is not the same for all users. Here is what happens:

Users 1-12 want a comedy thread. 12 people vote for it who will post there, 8 people vote for it out of sympathy, 19 people vote against, 3 vote no preference. Comedy thread enacted.

Users 12-24 want a lawyer show thread. Rinse and repeat.

Users 24-36 just got the Survivor season 1 dvds and want to discuss them. You get the drill.

At the end of this exercise we have six threads where everyone just really wanted one more than natter, and what happened to natter?

Okay, no offense to any lurkers, but if that's the case I say who the hell cares? I'm far more concerned with the experience of the 60-70.

This statement bothers me. I don't want to be part of a community that says, "Well, we've been here forever, so our opinion counts more than yours, you n00b. Forget that we were new once, this our sandbox, and just because you're here doesn't mean you're as good as we are."

Okay, I get this connie. Except I come here and don't go other places, because I don't like the massive overabundance of trollish craxxy that seems to permeate the Internets. But part of feeling that way involves being very elitist and standoffish toward newbies, particularly when they're hypotheitical newbies, whether I like that about myself and others here or not.

Wow, I'm really out of the loop on this one, because this doesn't feel like Big Dramatic Change to me at all. I don't see it as damaging to the community, and I don't foresee the board ending because of this. I understand the impetus to restrict change, but I think it's rather unfounded in this discussion, other than as a measure to promote careful consideration of what best serves the need of talking television for this community.

Specifically -- alter the six-month moratorium so that it kicks in regardless of whether or not the 42 person quorum is met.

I don't like this. It seems like it would make it way to easy to shut down discussion for six months with a narrow focus proposal that has minor support. Instead of getting thrown back and worked out it just delays and lets things fester. If we don't meet a quorom then either the issue needs to be dropped, or it needs better definition and refinement before it can pass.

"Well, we've been here forever, so our opinion counts more than yours, you n00b. Forget that we were new once, this our sandbox, and just because you're here doesn't mean you're as good as we are."

Speaking for me, I'm not talking about new people, I'm talking about people who either lurk and never post, or who drop a post once in a blue moon but don't really have any connection here. (And I'm not talking about people like d here, who I think falls on the other side of the line.) The question was posed what if we here discussing use the board one way but there's a whole host of others out there who we don't know about who use it differently. To which I say, fuck 'em. Seriously.

(I also don't think that this is a big issue or likelihood. My point was more "this is so not worth our worrying about " than "we need to take a stand and defend against the unknown masses."

David, only had time to skim, but I think there's a lot of truth in that. Will comment more when I have a few minutes to sit down and think.