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.

Actually, in my head *all* grandfathered moratoriums started ticking from the date the proposal was passed, because otherwise it was too hard to determine their start dates.

If the proposal does not pass, I believe that all old decisions are up for reconsideration immediately.

Shudder.

Okay, I have a couple of questions and comments...

1) I think it would be best if all grandfathered things get grandfathered from the date we passed the original moratorium. No, it's not necessarily fair to the older proposals that they have to wait longer, but trying to figure out a date for everything would be unfair to our collective sanity, and as we are real people, and the proposals are not, I say screw the proposals, our collective sanity is more important.

2) I know this proposal came up because people were takling about reproposing some things, but now I find myself wondering (after the cricket noises of the last few days) if there is really that much of a clamour to rehash old issues.

Umm... That's it for now.

If the proposal does not pass, I believe that all old decisions are up for reconsideration immediately.

I thought that this was the implication as well. And yes ::shudder::

My brain hurts!

If the proposal does not pass, I believe that all old decisions are up for reconsideration immediately.

Well, only inasmuch as anybody wants to propose them, and go through the proposal rigmarole, and possibly stir up icky emotions. Also, some decisions -- hey, yeah, some decisions should really take major effort to undo, like, say, our disciplinary procedures, or the board name, or the mission statement. I don't know as how we've covered that, or need to cover it, except inasmuch as the person who tries to change things set in stone will get a big healthy dose of "Stop that!" from the peanut gallery.

Um, now that I know the mootness date of the proposal isn't 35 days away, but potentially 125 days away, I'm a little less comfy about suggesting withdrawal and would like to hear more opinoins on the matter.

I think it would be best if all grandfathered things get grandfathered from the date we passed the original moratorium. No, it's not necessarily fair to the older proposals that they have to wait longer, but trying to figure out a date for everything would be unfair to our collective sanity, and as we are real people, and the proposals are not, I say screw the proposals, our collective sanity is more important.

For the exact same reasons, but to be a little less unfair, why not make the date of decision the latest possible date that a decision could have been made pre-vote which is around February 22, 2003, the beginning of the hammering out the voting process? This way there's a firm date for older decisions, and nothing can get re-discussed until after August 22, 2003.

Also, I recommend making it clear in the proposal that if this vote fails to pass, all decisions will be up for discussion whenever someone proposes it. This will eliminate confusion (and probably clinch the vote for yes.)

Also, I recommend making it clear in the proposal that if this vote fails to pass, all decisions will be up for discussion whenever someone proposes it.

Just to play the clarification game, even beyond the moratorium, this would be the case. In other words, I would not expect us to reconsider every decision the day that its voting moratorium was up.