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.

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.

Unless some insane midnight proposer what proposes at midnight tried to make all the Buffistas' heads explode.

Burrell, no - we're not reconsidering everything. We can't reconsider anything until that time has passed.

The purpose of the moratorium is to provide quiet time. It works thusly: We have our discussion; we make our decision (vote); then the moratorium makes those who were unhappy with the results hold their peace (is that piece?) for 6 months. Hopefully, there's not going to be too much. A general TV thread or a war thread are the only real clinkers I can think of.

I understand thinking that going from decision date is clunky, but it's only clunky if someone wants to actually re-open things. Voting and explanation-wise for grandfathering, it's actually simpler. All the proposal has to state is that issues decided before we started voting are grandfathered in under the 6 month moratorium rule, meaning they are closed for a minimum of 6 months after a decision has been made.

If someone wants to re-open an issue that we closed before we voted, the onus is on that someone to prove it's been six months since it got shot down the first time (i.e. nilly the original decision).

This is one of those things that scares me-- Bear with mre for a moment, as this is only tangentially related:

My friend Nancy and I were doing a show with a lot of High School Students. In the past, we had had a lot of trouble with people being late and/or skipping rehearsals altogether. We decided on a procedure and told them up front-- three Strikes and you are out. we really thought this would solve it, because before we felt we had no teeth.

Throughout the show, people would use up their two strikes. Deliberately. Probably people who wouldn't have skipped rehearsal in the first place. We learned that not having it laid out clearly was actually better.

This reminds me of that. It means we only have a 6th month moratorium on being called Buffistas or something. Some decisions should never be revisited.