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. ;)
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.
I think it's different, brenda, because the decision (and the burden, sort of) is on the person who made the proposal. If DX wanted to take it through to a vote, he could do that, because the initial proposal got enough seconds.
I'm with Jon!
Hee!
Also
There is always going to be a backchannel as long as we each have email addresses and separate identities.
So when we become the Buffista Borg-- no more backchannel?
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.
Is there anyone who disagrees with this?
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.)
The difference is that it is not the consensus of the moment that is imposing its will on the proposal, but rather that the advocate for the proposal is voluntarily withdrawing it, for whatever reason. Yes, in this case it would be because there appears to be overwhelming opposition, even if everyone hasn't had a chance to speak, but that consensus has not taken the decision out of my hands, which I think is what people were complaining about. I could still allow it to come to vote if I so desire. Richard Nixon would, he was a strong believer in the Silent Majority. :)
I, OTOH, have no such illusions.
