Found this:
Before proposing, please note that
1. Only one proposal may be discussed at a time
2. Items cannot be re-proposed for 6 months after a valid vote.
Guidelines/Rules for Proposing
1. A Buffista must make a formal proposal in the Bureaucracy thread. The proposer must be clear that he/she is making a formal proposal and state what that proposal is (note, this is not the final wording of the proposal)
2. In order for the proposal to move to discuss, it must receive 4 seconds which are made by posting in the Bureacracy thread
Announcing the Vote
1. Once the proposal received 4 seconds, a Stompy Foot will open the Voting Discussion thread
2. Thr Proposer will post the text of the proposal in the Voting Discussion thread.
3. The Proposer will post the text of the proposal in the Sunnydale Press thread with a link to the discussion.
Guidelines/Rules for Discussion
1. All discussion takes place in the Voting Discussion aka “Lightbulbs” thread.
2. Discussion takes place for 4 days.
3. The purpose of the discussion is so that all who have an opinion can be heard. It can also be used as a place to come to a consensus on the proposal that will be made.
4. During discussion, a volunteer is sought to count votes.
Guidelines/Rules for Voting
1. At the end of the 4 day discussion period, the proposer will craft a final ballot version of the proposal. Proposers may choose change the wording of the final ballot based on the discussion or they may choose to use their original wording. We encourage the ballots to be Yes or No answers, but it is not required. Each item we are voting on must include the choice “No Preference”
2. The proposer will send the final ballot text to Jon B at his profile address.
3. Jon B will set up a web ballot and share the link with the proposer.
4. The web ballot will be open for 3 days
5. The Proposer will post the final ballot text, the link to the ballot and the dates and times of voting in the Sunnydale Press thread
Guidelines/Rules for Counting the Vote
1. Vote counters should not share the votes of individual users.
2. There must be 42 votes in order for the vote to be valid.
3. Proposals win by simple majority .
4. At the end of the 3-day voting period, the vote counter reposts the final ballot text, with results (number of votes, the winning vote.
Guidelines/Rules for Voters
1. No Preference is the same as a vote of Present. You will be counted in the quorum of 42 to make the vote valid, but will not be counted for or against the proposal
2. If there are any questions during the voting period, they are asked in the Bureacracy thread
awesomesauce. I have unlocked Lightbulbs. go forth and post.
I found this post if you want something to follow:
"There is a proposal being discussed.
Discussion: NOW - 5/9/03 11:59 pm EST Voting: 5/10/03 12 am EST - 5/13/03 12:00 am EST
Proposal: That the community, if it is practical to code, allow individual threads to be designated, "Accessible only to members of the community," and restrict access to those threads only to registered users. Any such threads to be so designated shall be determined by separate proposal and vote. If the proposal passes, the coding of this feature shall be added to the features request list.
Proposer: DXMachina Seconds msbelle, JessPMoon, Nutty, Jesse
Voting discussion starts here:
DXMachina "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" May 5, 2003 1:24:15 pm EDT"
I don't think Glamcookie got her fourth second. I'm counting Cashmere, JenP, and Sophia (I think).
Since you seem to need a fourth second, I'll be it. If Sophia wasn't seconding it, we'll need one more.
I was seconding. I just thought it was three! Even though I am pretty sure I wrote the guidelines!
Just another example of how we are all fallible!
I don't want to put this in Light Bulbs, because I don't think it should have any bearing on how Glamcookie's proposal progresses.
For what it's worth, I don't think the weekend's upset would have been avoided by moving the ableism conversation from Goodbye and Good Riddance (GBGR) to either Bureau, or any other thread. Moving it might have made the participants and onlookers feel a little less awkward; I think both sj and Laura expressed their discomfort in having it play out in GBGR. I know I was uncomfortable. I don't think moving it would have given us a happy ending by the end of the weekend, though.
As I first read through GBGR, I would have bet the mortgage it was going to end with KB and Laura saying, "Oh, I didn't realize. I'm sorry," or, "Oh, I didn't understand the connection. I'm sorry," and that people would have already moved on by the time I got to the end of the thread. I was shocked at how it played out.
It does not seem to me that KB and Laura received received the feedback (specifically, from sj, Debet, Dana, and me) in the spirit in which it was offered. Beyond being respectful, polite, and careful in our wording (we were), we cannot control how others interpret or "hear" what we have said.
KB and Laura have expressed that they felt attacked. I disagree that they were, but I still feel terrible that they feel that way. I am also angry though, because I feel like they gaslit sj (and the rest of us) at the end.
I just felt compelled to say this, because I think a lot of us are looking at Glam's proposal wondering how it could have fixed this. I don't think it could have, not because of any flaw or missing feature of the proposal. I don't think it could have, just because people are people, and sometimes they can't or won't understand where other people are coming from. I think this was one of those times.
sj posted this in Light Bulbs, but Glamcookie has since retracted her proposal, so I want to move the conversation here.
[sj says] I'm not sure if my answer to that belongs here or not, but I think that on this website of all places I should be able to says that something someone said has, probably unintentionally, hurt me, and get a proper apology. While I was not the one that initially pointed out that Laura's post was also problematic, I totally agreed with what Debet posted at the time, and there was no apology given for that either. I understand that people did not want the discussion to continue in GB&GR, but, as I have said, I and others didn't know where to take it. I was offended by the idea that I should just drop it. So, if people do not want the thread that GC proposed, I feel there needs to be a clear policy in place for what I and others are supposed to do in the future if something like this happens again, as I'm sure it will because we all step in the guacamole at times, if I'm going to continue to feel comfortable posting here. Because I am past the point in my life where I feel like I'm going to just smile and ignore something that I find hurtful, especially around people who I consider to be friends. I'm not even sure if any of that was coherent. Sorry.
I added the bolding for emphasis. I agree with sj and would also like us to clarify our policy or develop one so we're all clear on how to handle future incidents.
Do we still have access to our FAQ somewhere? I wanted to look at our whole Warn/Suspend/Ban language. TO BE CLEAR: I don't want to request anyone be warned, etc. I just want a refresher on our process.
FWIW, when it was playing out, I didn't suggest moving the conversation from GBGR to Bureaucracy, because (a) I felt it was sj's place to do that, not mine, and (b) I felt like it would feel like I was escalating it, but KB and Laura are longtime members in good standing, so I didn't want to escalate it. I kept thinking something would click.
