Doesn't do much of anything, Steph. It just stops us from bringing up anything decided through consensus for a vote for a certain number of months.

The proposal was made after Wolfram asked for a War thread, which many people felt had been firmly decided.

In theory, without this measure in place, things like the Movies thread would be up for a vote.

I'm about to repropose it in its current form, Steph.

In the meantime, the basic idea is that we ratify the old decisions: like new decisions, they can't be reopened for six months. As Lyra says, this was prompted by Wolfram's request for the War thread. So the immediate cause is now moot, but I think the proposal is still worthwhile. Voters may disagree.

In theory, without this measure in place, things like the Movies thread would be up for a vote.

Only if someone proposed it again and it got the requisite seconds.

In a nutshell, a yes vote on this proposal would consider all decisions made prior to the institution of the voting rules as if they were decided using the rules, and subject those decisions to the appropriate moratorium.

A no vote on this proposal would not consider any pre-voting decisions as if they were made under the voting rules, and therefore they would not be subject to the moratorium (and able to be re-proposed immediately if someone wanted to do that.)

Common sense dictates that not all decisions regarding the functioning of this board are "voteable" or subject to proposal/discussion/voting. Whether this proposal passes or not it does not in any way affect what pre-voting decisions are "voteable" and what are not. The only thing this proposal determines is when pre-voting decisions that are "voteable" may be proposed again.

Only if someone proposed it again and it got the requisite seconds.

Hence the "theoretically," Wolf. :-)

as if they were decided using the rules

Wolfram, they were decided using the rules then in force.

I become angry when you suggest that everything that happened before voting was instituted was somehow illegitimate. This may be my cross to bear.

Whether this proposal passes or not it does not in any way affect what pre-voting decisions are "voteable" and what are not. The only thing this proposal determines is when pre-voting decisions that are "voteable" may be proposed again.

Right. That's the part that I want to emphasize. We're not talking about changing what may be voted on; that's all secure as-is. We're talking about what, among the things that may be voted on, may be voted on now, and what must wait its turn till X months from now.

Here is the revised proposal. Does anybody want to suggest further revisions before I make it official?

All decisions made before March 20, 2003 are subject to a waiting period before being reopened for discussion and voting. This waiting period shall be 6 months, and shall begin from March 20, 2003.

If this proposal passes, ... (see below)

If this proposal fails, all decisions made before the institution of voting may be reopened for discussion and voting immediately.

On the "see below", I need a definition of what decisions have been made. Is Anne doing this? Otherwise, I think the rule should be something like

when a new proposal is made, Buffistas have the option of challenging. To challenge, a Buffista must link to the original discussion of the idea. If ten Buffistas second the challenge, the proposal falls under the moratorium.

when a new proposal is made, Buffistas have the option of challenging. To challenge, a Buffista must link to the original discussion of the idea. If ten Buffistas second the challenge, the proposal falls under the moratorium.

Actually, I don't think the seconds are necessary, are they? If you can link to where the original decision was made, that should be it, shouldn't it?

I'm comfortable determining these things on a case by case basis, mostly because I don't think there'll be many cases.

The only hinky part I can see is determining what constituted a decision. Given everything, I'd say if an idea was floated and discussed, it counts. How much discussion? Maybe we can use our "four seconds" as a guide - if there were at least five posts on an issue, and either some action ensued or the idea was dropped, it counts as a decision.

If you can link to where the original decision was made, that should be it, shouldn't it?

Not really. It has proven in the past (War thread) to be ambiguous whether a decision was made. Especially since negative decisions are generally marked by the discussion trailing off.

Maybe we can use our "four seconds" as a guide - if there were at least five posts on an issue, and either some action ensued or the idea was dropped, it counts as a decision.

This has possibilities. The problem is that time of day factors in. If four people discuss something in the middle of the night, do they make any sound?

as if they were decided using the rules

I become angry when you suggest that everything that happened before voting was instituted was somehow illegitimate. This may be my cross to bear.

Betsy, let the cross go. I'm not suggesting that. Obviously, I meant "as if they were decided using the voting rules".

Not that it needs my stamp of approval, but for the record the method of decision used before the voting rules was perfectly legitimate. The only reasons we have this proposal was because that method did not include a moratorium. This gives the Buffistas a chance to apply the moratorium to that method. Nobody said the previous method was illegitimate.

All decisions made before March 20, 2003 are subject to a waiting period before being reopened for discussion and voting. This waiting period shall be 6 months, and shall begin from March 20, 2003.

Why March 20, 2003? Why not from February 22, 2003 when the voting rules were instituted? There were no decisions made between those two dates, and in all fairness we should try to get as close to those decisions temporally as we can.