You want to meet the real me now?

Mal ,'War Stories'


Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!  

We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!


Sophia Brooks - Mar 21, 2003 12:45:33 am PST #119 of 10289
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

6 months. So if we really want 6 months, then I want to see 9 months on the ballot so we end up with 6 months.

When I proposed I also Proposed that we narrow to 2 choices. We don't have to, but it would be hella easier. It seems like we can consense on 2 numbers

I wanted to second to be 4, so I voted for 1. I wanted the maximum voter turnout to be 25, so I voted for 40. In the second case, I misguessed the way people would vote.


P.M. Marc - Mar 21, 2003 1:19:00 am PST #120 of 10289
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear

If you try to imagine this post having John H's username attached to it, wouldn't it look more like devil's advocacy, and not offensive at all?

Nah, I'd snarl at him, too.

No one is exempt.


candyb - Mar 21, 2003 5:32:31 am PST #121 of 10289

I go with 3 months and 6 months.


Jon B. - Mar 21, 2003 5:35:21 am PST #122 of 10289
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!

I would like to point out that the purpose of this thread is to discuss the current issue about to be voting on (i.e. 3, 6, or 12 months), and nothing else. Thank you.


Sophia Brooks - Mar 21, 2003 6:32:32 am PST #123 of 10289
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

I would also like to point out that we don't have to sustain a discussion for 4 days. We can just be quite for 4 of them, and let people who had some days off read through the (small) discussion.


Lyra Jane - Mar 21, 2003 6:56:53 am PST #124 of 10289
Up with the sun

I like three months. Six is a very long time. I only got married six months ago. Four might be best, though -- an issue would only come up three tmes a year, but it's not an eternity.

And yes, there should be an "extraordinary circumstances" clause in the final language voted on.


Jesse - Mar 21, 2003 7:58:52 am PST #125 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

Are we even gonna be able to sustain four whole days of discussion on 3 or 6?

God willing, the thread will be fairly quiet for the last couple of days, giving people a chance to catch up.

Six months! It is the only right answer (henceforth, the Jesse approach).

Snerk.

Are we really going with limited choices and a straight X number of months or 6 months on a ballot? Cause if we did, I skimmed it.

In order to making voting as simple as possible, Sophia suggested that we try to come to an agreement around two choices. She proposed 3 months, 6 months, a year. As far as I can see from people's responses here, everyone thinks a year is too long. A few people think 4 months is optimal -- do those people care enough to agitate for it as a choice? If not, I think we're pretty well set with choosing between 3 and 6 months. Remember, people, nothing HAS to be revisited.


Jesse - Mar 21, 2003 7:59:56 am PST #126 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

Also, possibly to be added to the ballot:

  • Language about "extraordinary circumstances"

  • Does this apply to issues that are raised but don't get enough seconds? What should the time frame there be?

  • Is there a time limit for people to get their seconds?


Jessica - Mar 21, 2003 8:03:09 am PST #127 of 10289
If I want to become a cloud of bats, does each bat need a separate vaccination?

I absolutely think the closed discussion time limit should apply to unseconded proposals. Otherwise, people are going to be re-proposing endlessly until the only reason people second is to get it voted and done with, and that's a waste of everyone's time.

I think 24 hours is a reasonable amount of time to wait for 4 seconds.


candyb - Mar 21, 2003 8:27:00 am PST #128 of 10289

I agree with Jess PMoon.