Womack ,'The Message'
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!
A number of the circumstances surrounding my objections to this proposal have changed.
Therefore, my objections have changed, and may in fact no longer exist.
The original rant that was posted here has been saved, and parts of it may resurface, but I felt it should be taken down for now.
I agree with Sean. And I'm as big a fan of Tim's as the next guy, and really, really appreciate the fact that he comes here and posts as a Buffista as well. Only this:
I know many people, including ita, have pointed out that if we quickly decide that there was no need for the thread that it's esay wnough to make it go away, and the drain on resources would be minor.
I don't think deleting a thread will prove to be at all easy. So caution beforehand is probably a better course.
From msbelle in Press:
Voting has stopped.
85 people voted on the following proposal:
Proposal: That the community, if it is practical to code, allow individual threads to be designated, "Accessible only to members of the community," and restrict access to those threads only to registered users. Any such threads to be so designated shall be determined by separate proposal and vote.
Results:
Yes 15
No 63
No preference 7
Here's the proposal on the floor.
All decisions made between December 20, 2002 and March 20, 2003 [was within the last three months] are subject to a waiting period before being reopened. This waiting period shall be the standard Buffista post-vote waiting period, and shall begin from March 20, 2003 [was the passage of this proposal].
Arguments pro:
Arguments con:
Betsy HP "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 20, 2003 10:33:58 pm EST
Here is a formal proposal for the next vote (assuming it gets four seconds).
All decisions made within the last three months are subject to a waiting period before being reopened. This waiting period shall be the standard Buffista post-vote waiting period, and shall begin from the passage of this proposal.
[Original proposal made by BHP on March 20, 2003]
This proposal got more than 4 seconds, and grew out of a sticky discussion that began about 1000 posts before the proposal itself.
The phrase the last three months was (iirc) meant to signify all decisions made before we began voting, and/or all those that weren't covered by the vote we took to enact a 6 month moratorium (with a gut check at 3 mos.) that prohibits us from easily tossing out decisions we've already agonized to make.
I'll put in a suggestion that the proposal is only about 35 days shy of moot. If we can all promise to twiddle our thumbs and not repropose somethign we know has been previously discussed until June 20th, then I can endorse withdrawal of the proposal in good conscience.
Also known as, let us procrastinate and save ourselves some labor!
Not to be construed as social pressure for Betsy to withdraw, only as the opportunity to do so if she so chooses.
I don't know whether this can be done or not but...
The actual moratorium that did pass and covers voted-on issues, is for six months in length, not three (there is to be a gut check on moratorium length in general, at 3 months).
I don't know if Betsy wants to, but if she does want to, would it be okay for her final proposal to be worded such that all the pre-voting days decisions are grandfathered under that moratorium as well?
Since this proposal, if passed, would only extend the moratorium to June 20th, 2003
Um, sorry to be an idiot, but why is that? Didn't we vote on a 6 month moratorium? Why wouldn't it be September 20th?
See the second of my arguments con. If we can consense here that the proposal is now moot, I'll withdraw it.
And if anybody suggests preferential voting, I will get out my machete.