even if it is a tendency, it could be because people with their finger on the pulse of the community are crafting well-written proposals.
Well-written proposals would just be masking the tendency, which I see as akin to the tendency for incumbents to get votes on name recognition. Most incumbents may be competent, but if you can run someone who is same name, no relation (or incumbent, but dead), and they win, the voting tendency is too strong.
the process is a high cost exercise for just a moratorium
Somebody (Betsy or Anne?) is planning a proposal on a negative issue right now, phrased like "Resolved: No revisiting the old hard-fought consensus decisions for a vote." That desire for closure is the kind of thing that would motivate someone to go through the process just for a moratorium. It's really only the proposer and seconders who get to decide if having the process is worth it.
phrased like "Resolved: No revisiting the old hard-fought consensus decisions for a vote."
It will be "no revisiting stuff for X months." If it turns out that the process is being abused by folks sneakily hoping to get something moratoriumized, then we can revisit the process (not just the thing moratoriumized) in X months.
And if it's an obvious abuse of the system, it's unlikely to get the needed four seconds.
Well-written proposals would just be masking the tendency, which I see as akin to the tendency for incumbents to get votes on name recognition.
Well written proposals COULD be just masking the tendency. You're going to need to show me evidence it's anything other than a hypothetical to convince me.
Although I get a kick out of Burrell's theory that if we propose it, it will pass, I think we have to remember context. We decided, given our newly acquired girth, that voting would give us a clearer idea of what people want, than bureaublahblah alone.
- Most of the proposals to date, have focused on process
- Most ballots were crafted after intense community discussion
- Most ballot crafters took input from the community
I don't think we're lemmings who'll approve anything put on a ballot. I think we've listened to each other, focused on the elements people have said are important to them, and then reaffirmed it by a ballot.
As for the moratorium on withdrawn proposals, I think it's overkill. When things are withdrawn, they're usually going to be withdrawn because they're unpopular. Unless someone out there thinks they could have crafted the initiative differently, in a way that would please most Buffistas, the issue is going to die. If someone out there can craft the initiative in a way that pleases most Buffistas, and can point out to us that it's useful, well then - good on us and good on them, too.
My kittens are on the fact that this locked-to-members idea is going to go into its own self-imposed moratorium, anyhow. On the off chance it doesn't, I can't imagine it getting seconded again, unless it's different and full of potential. If it is seconded, it's probably worth discussing on it's own merits. If not, if it ends up being a rehash of the previous unpopular idea, we'll vote the sucker down.
I think if we disallow DX from withdrawing, and/or impose a moratorium on an already organically dead issue, we're going to end up drowning in detail.
I really don't get this "vote yes" tendency theory.
I thought we were just joking about our apparent inability to say No. I have cast both Yes and No votes and expect to do so in the future.
And Yes, I think we should follow through with the process.
And if it's an obvious abuse of the system, it's unlikely to get the needed four seconds.
And. This. I really trust us.
I think if we disallow DX from withdrawing, and/or impose a moratorium on an already organically dead issue, we're going to end up drowning in detail.
This could also discourage people who think they have a good idea from proposing. It discourages me. Which could be a good thing.
I think I'm in favor of takebacks. Discussion can be, often should be, part of crafting a worthwhile voting proposal. I know we're not set up that way, and I don't know whether we would want to be, whether the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks to be set up that way, or not. Because I'm the type to say, hey, what if we did this, just throw it out there and see what happens. Discussion is good. Sometimes you get ideas on how better to word something, or you learn that one aspect is important to people, while nobody cares at all about another aspect and nobody likes the third part of the proposal.
Do we presently allow significant alteration of a proposal before it goes to vote from the form it's originally presented for discussion? I'm getting "no" from the present discussion. So either that maybe should be an option, A) present a prospective proposal for discussion, and craft the precise proposal after general consensus (is that what we have now? because I'm hearing not so much), or B) allow takebacks if discussion reveals no to little interest or benefit from the idea.
If a proposer changes his/her mind about a proposal during the discussion, the proposer can always alter the wording of the proposal to the antithesis of the original proposal when it comes time to vote.
I think doing this, however, could create confusion during the voting.
Do we presently allow significant alteration of a proposal before it goes to vote from the form it's originally presented for discussion?
We've agreed that the wording of the ballot is the proposer's responsibility, and that changes are allowed during the discussion period. I don't think we've discussed what "significant" changes would be, and frankly I don't want to get into arguments about what percentage counts blah blah -- the principle that it's the proposer's responsibility should extend to any changes the proposer wants to make. That logically includes withdrawing a ballot.
