I'm not sure if there is someone in the queue for counting Jon, but I can do it again if no one else wants the task. Profile addy good.

ita needs to set you up, not me. She makes it so that "votes@..." goes to your address.

S'alright. ita - send them my way and count I will.

wrong thread - dammit

Laura, I can do it if you don't want to count again.

For what it's worth (which is probably not much), I'm going to vote against the grandfather clause.

Basically, I don't think the chance of someone bringing something up for a vote that we have truly decided (e.g., a politics thread) is as great as the chance that, over the next six months, we'll want to change something and it will turn out we can't, because five people posted about it at 4 a.m. on a Sunday in the middle of a heated argument about something else.

If I had a complete list of issues, my mind might be put at rest; without one, I don't want to risk the chance that this vote will seal something that wasn't really fully discussed, or that we'll want very much in a few months.

I still don't understand the grandfathering clause and I'm not sure which vote (yes or no) would be voting against it so I have no idea how I'm going to vote.

Yes = Approving. No voting on anything we decided through consensus before voting, at least until September.

No = Not approving. Anything is up for proposal and voting tomorrow, regardless of what we said about it pre-voting.

So I am voting no, because I trust my Buffistas not to be butt-munchy enough to actually bring dead issues up in the first place, or get the necessary seconds if they did. And if we did have to spend a week voting on something we had talked about before ... maybe I'm missing something, because I don't think that would be a major cultural crisis.

Um, I took the discussion to indicate we were starting voting last night. Has there been an annoucement of such anywhere, and should there be (nudge, nudge)? Got to the end of the thread and I'm confused!

askye, may I take a stab at an explanation? if I come off as know-it-all or condescending, smack me smartly and I'll stop.

"Grandfathering" something in generally means that you instituted a new rule, but a whole bunch of items pre-exist that rule, and you don't want to have to write the rule specifically to deal with the older things, so you "grandfather" them into the rule -- give them an exemption based on tradition (basically on the understanding that they're so old they'll eventually die off and you won't have to deal with them). Yes, "grandfathering" is really applied to grandfather-type people, or anyway their rent control and pensions and things.

So, we have a new "moratorium" rule: if you propose X, and X does not pass, X may not be proposed again for 6 months. We instituted this rule in March.

It turns out, we have Y and Z that we talked about but didn't do anything about before we invented the moratorium rule.

The question being voted on is, do Y and Z obey the moratorium rule, and wait 6 months before we propose them again?

YES means: you want to "grandfather" Y and Z into the moratorium, even though they're older than the moratorium, and make people wait 6 months (till September) before proposing a General TV Thread, Politics Thread, etc.

NO means: you want to be able to propose a General TV Thread as soon as this vote is done.

Really, this is a one-time deal. Y and Z from before-voting are the only items that we're talking about here. X proposal, that we did vote on and voted down, has its own 6-month moratorium automatically. Only Y and Z are under debate right now.