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.

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.

Yeah, I was wondering about withdrawing the proposal. I really see no point in flogging this poor dead horse any longer than we have to. The discussion here seems to have moved from the merits of the proposal itself to possible alternatives beyond the scope of the proposal, which I feel would be better discussed in Bureaucracy. I also don't think we are required to vote on every single proposal that is seconded, as parlimentary procedure always allows the original proposer to withdraw a proposal.

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.

I would really be opposed to this, unless the second proposal was identical to the first. If someone wants to take over as advocate for the same proposal, I think it's fine.

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.

OTOH, I do not want to stifle anyone who hasn't had a chance to post their thoughts. For the time being, I am going to leave the proposal on the table, and I will decide whether or not to withdraw it when the discussion period ends.

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.

We should always have the option to withdraw a proposal. Not just because a proposal may get crushed at the polls, but also because a proposer should be able to withdraw a proposal if the discussion becomes too devisive, or if facts are brought forward that makes the proposal moot.

FWIW, I think the proposer should be able to withdraw the proposal as well. Then, if someone else wants to propose something similar, or whatever, they could just start the process over. If this proposal is withdrawn, we won't have lost anything. I think we've gained more understanding of who we are and how things work. We've been brainstorming, I guess, and it's helped us to clarify things (like e-mailing the admin) -- or it's helped me, anyway.

I think we need to go through with the voting just so that Burrell is proved wrong. ;)

Hee!

I do see your point, DX et al, but I'm still not sure. Wasn't the whole point of voting to avoid the "bullshit consensus"? And isn't that more or less what we have here? (I'm not saying it is bullshit - just that most voices here have been arguing against so we're potentially determing that a decision has been made.)

If we do decide that we can withdraw proposals without a vote at this stage, then I'd definitely say that the moratorium should not be in effect.