Brenda, I asked the question because I wasn't sure if any distinction would be made. Betsy said "all" means "all". I was just wondering, since I don't recall (though I skipped and skimmed a whole lot through previous pre-vote discussions), if a distinction was made between those decisions which were made to take a positive action (e.g. create a thread) and those which were to take no action (e.g. not create a thread).

As I currently understand it, there is no real difference except with regard to the time frame. All previous decisions can either be addressed now or after September 20, 2003.

So Betsy, you're thinking that every decision we make should be open to revisitation every 6 months?

That's what we have now - the current proposal is looking at stuff that might be in a grey area because they were decided prior to our instituting the voting system.

Note that the decision we're making is whether these issues are off limits for the next six months (or six months from the date of the original proposal I guess) or whether they're fair game right now. This proposal will push them aside for a while - it's not opening anything up for debate that's not already there.

I see. Betsy, if I understand you correctly, you're not expressing an opinion about the "all decisions" aspect, but only using the language we've been using all along.

IOW, we're all going to have to sit down and propose something, eventually, if we want to make it harder to unmake decision. I would like to discuss this idea further, because I see merit in making it harder to unmake decisions, but I understand it's not germane to the proposal currently in light bulb. But, you know, eventually.

Yes, I'm like a Rogerian therapist this way. I understand things best by restating them.

but only using the language we've been using all along.

Exactly. This is "Apply the standards we apply elsewhere to older decisions."

I don't think we need to make it harder to unmake decisions until somebody actually tries. I am quite confident that if somebody tries to unmake a popular thread, the vote and the discussion will go against them.

Okay, I'm sensing the beginnings of handwringing, and I want to nip it in the bud.

When we voted on the 6 month moratorium, the idea wasn't that all decisions would be BROUGHT BACK UP in 6 months. It was that all votes were untouchable for 6 months.

For example, let's take the Movies thread. I was against it. I still don't think we need it. And yet, it would never occur to me to propose that we axe it. In other words, we should proceed on the assumption that decisions, once in place, will stay put, unless there is actually enough dissent, or enough change, to warrant bringing it up again at a later point.

I am really, really sorry I brought this up. I swear I only wanted clarification.

I get it now, and I think it was my elaborations that made it messier. Apologies all around.

(Good point, too, Burrell.)

Are we going to vote on a Minear thread or not? I'm confused.

I would welcome a Minear thread, because then it would be a good way to gauge if we need a Wonder Falls thread later on.

First we have to propose and vote. (I hated interdict, so I kept "challenge")

Here's the final text of Grandfather. Can somebody set up the vote? (Have we discussed this long enough that asking for a vote is proper?)

All decisions made before March 20, 2003 are subject to a moratorium before being reopened for discussion and voting. During the moratorium, changes to the decision cannot be proposed, discussed, or voted on. The moratorium lasts 6 months beginning March 20, 2003.

If an issue is proposed and a Buffista believes the issue should fall under the moratorium, the Buffista must challenge the proposal. To challenge a proposal, you link to the pre-March proposal of the issue. If at least five distinct people replied to the proposal and no action was taken, this counts as a negative decision and falls under the moratorium. If the action was implemented, this counts as a positive decision and falls under the moratorium.

If you vote "Yes", then issues decided before March 20,2003 cannot be reopened for discussion until September 20, 2003. After September 20th, 2003, they can be reopened exactly like any voted-on decision.

If you vote "No", then issues decided before March 20, 2003 can be reopened at any time, beginning immediately.

I still don't know why March 20 is the date in the proposal and not February 22, or an earlier "fairer" date. But other than that, I think the proposal looks great. Thanks for all the hard work, Betsy.