It's sad when you (I) can't really remember that there was a particular debate or, when reminded, remember which side I was on. Or if I even chose one. Did we vote about un-no preferencing? We are awesome and funny.

I like the polished version.

Jen, people even voted, "no preference" on the no preference vote.

Wow. I have no recollection of that at all. None. and I probably had an opinion.

Does this mean consensus on the wording of the proposal? If so, maybe this should say something like "The purpose of the discussion is to allow all who have an opinion on the proposal and/or the wording of the proposal to be heard."

I was trying to reflect (not sure if I did) that not only the wording of the proposal, but the proposal itself could change through discussion. It is just up to the proposer. I personally feel strongly that the proposer should, as a good citizen of the community, shepherd the proposal through making changes that reflect the discussion, so I may be showing my bias.

Also, the valid vote thing brings up a question. I am assuming that any proposal which is withdrawn r does not meet 42 can be re-opened for discussion. But now that there is no "no preference" I am not sure that is true.

Wow. I have no recollection of that at all. None. and I probably had an opinion.

At least I'm in good company!

Jen, people even voted, "no preference" on the no preference vote.

Ha! Love.

I am assuming that any proposal which is withdrawn r does not meet 42 can be re-opened for discussion. But now that there is no "no preference" I am not sure that is true.

I seem to recall (and we know what that's worth) that if something doesn't reach 42 votes, then it is supposed to get tabled for the allotted time. Not sure about withdrawn.

Jen, I think you're right. I believe there was one vote that didn't hit 42 and that it could be re-proposed after 6 months.

I seem to recall (and we know what that's worth) that if something doesn't reach 42 votes, then it is supposed to get tabled for the allotted time. Not sure about withdraw

My (possibly faulty) recollection was that we had the "No Preference" vote so that people who did not care, but wanted people to STOP TALKING could do that. That is why I thought that votes that did not reach 42 could be brought up again. But when we take away "no preference" I am confused. But possibly not confused enough to try and go back and find it. Unless there is a cheesebutt link somewhere.

Cheesebutt: [link]

(I was never here.)

I didn't see anyone!

OK- it is actually still not clear! I made the proposal about the moratorium, and I don't know the answer.

Also, Jon, do you post in press, or the proposer? It looks like the proposer posts the hear ye, hear ye.

ETA: I can't read too much of the discussion because I swear I get flashbacks. I have never talked so much in my entire life.

I don't know what was originally decided via our initial votes and discussions, but here's what's been happening in practice:

• After getting the required secondses, a Stompy opens Lightbulbs and also posts to Press.

• Near the end of the 4 day discussion period, if the proposer hasn't clearly posted final wording for the proposal, I will nudge them to do so in Lightbulbs.

• At the end of the 4 day discussion period, I set up a web ballot and make a post in Press containing a one sentence summary of the issue along with a link to the ballot and the Lightbulbs discussion. Here is an example.

• The one time we did not reach 42 votes (Pix's F2F scheduling calendar thingie), we decided that she'd have to wait 6 months before she could re-propose.

My admittedly vague memory was that the vote over "No Preference" was instigated by proposals being passed because they reached the 42 vote quorum, but the majority of those votes were No Preference, so it would pass with 6 Yes votes or some such.