Right. Yes = Yes, you must wait till September on these certain items. No = no, don't bother waiting.

I'm of two minds. (Or mings, as I originally typed.) Yes means less arguing now about things we've already argued about. Then again, we haven't argued about them recently, have we? I would sort of have preferred to let sleeping dogs lie, but now that we're voting I'm pretty much in the yes camp.

Can the proposal at hand be misinterpreted? Only by people who aren't reading it or the discussion, and who aren't asking questions if they're confused. I don't want to vote against a proposal just because it shouts in the direction of something else entirely that happens to be scary -- that's letting fear and/or exhaustion run the discussion.

I'm not voting on this one. I've participated in every voting discussion and voted on every issue to come up so far, but:

• I feel that this proposal was a response to a specific point (the war thread) that is now moot, and it never needed to become a general priniciple thing;
• I feel Buffistas are sensible enough to recognize those issues that do urgently need to be revisited before whatever arbitrary time period is elapsed and to say, "tough shit" to others;
• I very strongly agree with the feeling that we're over-legislating. Nailing down every possible contingency does not remove the bureaucracy fatigue: It is the very essence of the bureaucracy fatigue.

The last point is why I'm abstaining rather than voting "no". If I'm right in my instinct that over-legislation has become a serious problem for a significant percentage of the board, I'd actually like to see it fail to get MVT. I'll take the risk that the motion will pass, especially as I actually think it will do very little either way, because I don't think it's something we need to be voting on at all.

The last point is why I'm abstaining rather than voting "no". If I'm right in my instinct that over-legislation has become a serious problem for a significant percentage of the board, I'd actually like to see it fail to get MVT.

Keep in mind that a vote of "no preference" counts towards the MVT. We voted on that. ;)

Exactly why having no preference votes count toward MVT was a terrible decision.

The process seems very clear to me.

And to me, too. But it seems very unclear to both people who aren't in bureau as much as we are, and to people who hate bureau way more than we do, Jon, and I think it has potential in it, not to be misused, but for someone to either attempt to misuse it, or to create a firestorm because they didn't see issue X as something that would have fallen under it.

I still think it should just be withdrawn and only dragged out if it's needed. Also - everything askye said.

I won't vote "no" or "no preference". I just won't vote.

Exactly why having no preference votes count toward MVT was a terrible decision.

Well, this way you have a choice. If you have no strong opinion, but want the issue to be decided, you vote "no preference". If you don't want the issue decided, you don't vote. If NP votes didn't count towards the MVT, you wouldn't have that option.

Let us have a non-voting party!

I like this sensible idea.

I think it would be nifty if we got 42 votes.

I think it would be nifty if we got 42 votes.

(Hugs Laura out of sheer giddy affection)

Hang on, I'll put this in Press.