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.

Can somebody set up the vote? (Have we discussed this long enough that asking for a vote is proper?)

I'll set up the ballot. When does voting start? Tomorrow night at Midnight or tonight?

March 20th is the date, because that's when Betsy originally made the grandfather proposal in bureau. And for the love of all that's holy, it's this kind of pedantry (and believe me, I have pedantry coursing though my veins in lieu of blood) that makes these discussions so difficult. March 20? February 22? Who gives a fig? It's Betsy's proposal, it's her date. She can throw in the 12th of Never, and we either vote yes or no, based on content, date, or how she used commas.