So, is there a mechanism in place for a proposer to withdraw a proposal in the face of overwhelming opposition? or does it have to go to a vote if it's gotten its seconds and been discussed?

I think the latter. The whole point of voting was making sure decisions weren't made just by whoever was in the thread -- if we only move to a vote on things we like, we really haven't changed anything.

But I would guess the final decision is DX's?

Yeah, we don't know what everyone thinks. It should just go to vote.

if we only move to a vote on things we like, we really haven't changed anything

I agree with your final point -- if DX doesn't want to go all the way with his proposal (since it's up to him to craft it precisely), there's no reason to go any further.

It's not a "we" thing, so much.

If we don't vote then we keep the "all things voted on pass rule" as valid. If we vote and it is defeated then NSM.

If we don't vote then we keep the "all things voted on pass rule" as valid

I don't think it's a rule, so much as a statistical observation.

Now, there's nothing formal down, but I wonder that if the proposer lost motivation -- would the discussion moratorium still come into action?

I think, if DX decides that his proposal isn't worth voting on after all, that he should be able to withdraw it if he so chooses. Then again, he might want to bring it all the way to vote anyway, just to affirm that the voting process doesn't always cause yeses.

I'm glad this conversation is happening, because it's a way of sussing out how we all feel about events, and what we would like to do in future when faced with bad situations.

So yes, people will need to understand that sometimes backchannel happens. People will also need to refrain from mentioning backchannel issues here unless they're ready to talk the whole thing out.

This strikes me as key, and not just on a politeness level. At some point, it becomes an issue on a policy level, because the admins (in that one case) acted before they wanted to, so as to cut off the possibility of unfactual gossip. The admins have backchannel precisely so that they can present a united front, when a united front is called for.

I lack confidence, because I think our method is great for most situations, but is likely to fail in extreme situations, which of course, is when we need it most.

Cindy, do you feel the same way about the procedure we just put into place? (The one msbelle proposed.) I like to think that speeds things up, as it was the rehashing and confusion -- and reluctance to take it to Bureaucracy -- that was causing delay. For my part, I think I should have taken it to Bureaucracy for a formal warning two weeks earlier, but I was afraid of testing the process, because the Schmoker thing had been so nerve-wracking. Now, with a procedure firmly at my back, I feel a lot more confident, and will be acting sooner.

As for the creepy, offboard aspects of the situation? I don't know. That it's creepy I don't deny, and would like to come up with some kind of solution. That it's offboard means I don't know what the solution would be.

Do we need to vote to enact the moratorium, or does taking it this far do that?

Okay - that was a very delayed Xpost by me, up there.

Nutty - my concern is only hypothetical, and so at this point, I'd rather let it lie. I think for ordinary cases, our procedure (as drafted by msbelle) is quite good, because we have certain requirements we have to meet. (My concern was only for a very specific case, i.e. if someone is suspended and then targets people who were active in seconding his suspension.) Hopefully, that won't happen.

I think I was one of the two that Wolfram mentions above, and this was exactly my issue. I had no problem with how the stompies handled things with MMMMMwhoever. Just "the first rule of backchannel blahblahblah."

No Brenda, you weren't. You were one of the overwhelming majority who congratulated the stompies for their handling. Many people were more than a little perturbed that someone who was privy to a backchannel discussion thrust it into the thread the way he/she did. There is always going to be a backchannel as long as we each have email addresses and separate identities.

I agree with your final point -- if DX doesn't want to go all the way with his proposal (since it's up to him to craft it precisely), there's no reason to go any further.

Yep. But if DX retracts his proposal and someone wants to offer a new proposal, during this period, they should be allowed to continue the current discussion and voting schedule without needing to resort to seconds and a new discussion/voting period. That way if a number of people who would have been for a proposal are absent for the first couple days of discussion they are not prejudiced. If the 4 day period ends and no ballot is crafted/submitted the issue dies without a moratorium.

Do we need to vote to enact the moratorium, or does taking it this far do that?

I'd say we're there.

Still, much as it's nice to shorten the process where it seems possible, I do think that if we've come here, we need to actually go through with the vote in order to avoid the issues that prompted voting in the first place. If the original proposer is no longer interested or in favor, I don't think it's a big prob - the q can always go on the ballot as originally worded. Sophia was able to craft fair ballot questions on issues she no longer supported, IIRC, and I'm sure the rest of us are up to the challenge if necessary.