Not 9?

[nevermind, I'm an idiot and not thinking mathily enough. different "perfect." carry on.]

OK, how 'bout this. Does 12 mos. have any supporters out there, as either the kill-time or as a ballot option?

Does 12 mos. have any supporters out there, as either the kill-time or as a ballot option?

I haven't seen anybody push for 12 months yet.

This bugs me, because, well, I didn't. And I'm not placing blame on anyone, 'cuz what you did worked (and, oddly, gave me the results I wanted, too. I think.)

See? It's not about being right or voting your conscience. It's about trusting that the system will produce the proper results.

Voting up on those numbers is no different than voting for Gore, because although you wanted Ralph Nader, you didn't think he stood a snowball's chance in hell of winning. People can do what they want with their vote.

I am asking the people who keep suggesting we add 4 months as an option, to consider dropping that request.

You don't have to do what I am asking, but I am still asking. I'm asking it because there's not a huge difference between 3 months and 4 months. I would hate to see our ballot become more complex over this. Nothing guarantees an item will be revisited at all. This is just the waiting period before it can be revisited (barring extraordinary circumstance).

Can we please just agree putting 3 and 6 up for a vote? Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with a cherry on top? Not mine, heaven knows that bird's flown the coop, but I'm sure there's one lying around here somewhere.

Nope, me either. So we can maybe take that one off the table and proceed with narrowing down the options. So far I've seen 3, 4, 6, and 9 suggested. Three and six were originally up there, and seem to have the most support.

So how 'bout this: does anyone object to three and six as the ballot options? Speak up, and maybe we can get the question hammered out.

Preferential Ballot!!!!

t /ducks

t hits Jon over the head with a pumpkin

My question is-- is anyone so married to the idea of 4 or 9 that they can deal with talking about how to vote. Because I am not.

Also, do we want to add the think about limitng seconds to this ballot. I am thinking not at this point.

Likewise, I have a similar reaction to someone saying that the board is squelching their free speech. This is a private board with an international membership. We are not constitutionally bound to uphold the 4th Amendment.

pssst, 1st Amendment

For self-serving reasons I want to say 3 months, if old issues end up with the same moratorium. But I'm more inclined to 6 months because there's no reason to see the same issues debated 4 times a year. That being said, there needs to be a system in place to make exceptions to the 6 month rule, and I think we need to discuss that at the same time. I suggest a significant change in circumstance exception, and what constitutes a "change in circumstance" to warrant breaking the moratorium gets a shorter discussion and vote period (say 1 day for each) because if the change is significant it should be easy to gauge the feeling of the board in 2 days.

Edited to fix the spelling of gauge. It was driving me batty.

We can't decide what constitutes a 'change in circumstance' unless we want to get bogged down in very minute details. we cannot anticipate everything.

I think a change in circumstance has to be decided by "old style" consensus.