3 months is too soon, 1 year is too long, and likewise, I think 6 months is also too long. 4 months = 3x/year possible discussion.

This is my position as well.

As for how much time people should have to get seconds ... why do we need a time limit? I would bet that most issues will get seconds with in a matter of minutes to hours. But if something doesn't, for whatever reasons, and three weeks later someone comes up with a fourth, I see no reason why their second should be invalid.

(BTW, if something is proposed and fails to get enough seconds, does it move to the list of Forbidden Topics, or can they bring it up again the next day?)

Language about "extraordinary circumstances"

How would we decide what constitutes extraordinary circumstances? Cause, I have a pretty high tolerance for things that are out of the ordinary that don't qualify as extraordinary.

I don't think we can talk about putting a list of "WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHANGE OF STATUS" on a ballot. We can never come up with all of the possible situations.

Ack, that would be a nightmare. But my proposal was a method to decide what constitutes a change of status. I'm afraid if we leave it to old style consensus then the moratorium won't be strong enough, because a simple old style consensus would break it. Since the moratorium should be practically ironclad we should have a formal and almost insurmountable method to break it, like a supermajority vote.

I agree with

As for how much time people should have to get seconds ... why do we need a time limit? I would bet that most issues will get seconds with in a matter of minutes to hours. But if something doesn't, for whatever reasons, and three weeks later someone comes up with a fourth, I see no reason why their second should be invalid.

In order to deal with the problem of

(BTW, if something is proposed and fails to get enough seconds, does it move to the list of Forbidden Topics, or can they bring it up again the next day?)

So once something's been proposed, it's been proposed, and if it doesn't get seconds immediately, it can just sit around for awhile until either someone decides to second it or people forget about it. That way, there won't be a need to keep reproposing something.

Hil, we are thinking alike on this one ;-).

I'm just thinking that if it only takes four seconds to bring on a vote, that if you leave the proposal out there long enough then everything proposed will have to be voted on. Which sort of negates the impulse to have seconds.

The argument against would be that if something is proposed at a meeting and it doesn't get enough seconds in that meeting you don't leave it open forever until it collects enough seconds eight meetings down the road.

As for the main question, I don't mind if it's between 4 and 6 months as long as you can evenly divide the year with it. So 4 works as a low end, unless somebody still wants to push for 3. I'd rather have the choice between two options for the vote however.

I've got no problem with the choices being 4 and 6.

I'm good with 4 and 6.

as long as you can evenly divide the year with it.

Care to explain why?

(Not that I'm lobbying for 5 or 7, but...why?)

Hmmm... my instincts said 4 - which is why I am leaning toward 3. However. 6 is starting to win in my mind as long as it is possible to reopen due to circumstances. I am guessing that someone bring up the same proposal 4 x in a year - might get shot down pretty fast by those annoyed with the topic and have people not participate. So I think 6 months will increases participation. and I'd like to see more people invovled , not less.

I guess that means I am leaning toward 6