Arguments pro:

• Reopening discussions we've already had drains community goodwill

Arguments con:

• The proposition itself requires reopening discussions, because we'll have to generate a list of what decisions were made and what constitutes a decision.
• Since this proposal, if passed, would only extend the moratorium to June 20th, 2003, that's a lot of effort for very little return.

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.

Oh. If it's a six-month moratorium, that's a big difference; it isn't moot at all.

I am open to making it all decisions; when I said three months prior, I was trying to be fair, because otherwise old decisions got a longer moratorium than new decisions.

Really Betsy, if it were my proposal, I'd reword it to give it more teeth, not withdraw it, but then again, I REALLY want us to stop reconsidering previous decisions. Plus I think rewording is only fair, given that you were kinda forced to not bring it up for a vote for an inordinately long time.

No, machete Betsy. I'm saying that your grandfathering time period length could/should be changed to reflect the actual moratorium.

Burrell, it would be six months from whenever a decision is made. So if we said, "no toe nail polish thread" back in February, and the grandfather initiative passed, you couldn't propose that kind of thread until August. If we said, "no cheese thread" in January, it would be grandfathered under the moratorium until July.

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.

What's confusing about this proposal is what happens to old decisions if you vote no to the proposal. I think you need to define whether that means they're up for rediscussion immediately or they're never up for rediscussion. Because this wording can go either way.