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
Wolfram we don't want to close issues to keep people from having their say. We want to close issues because sometimes it's hard to divorce feeling from position on an issue. And if we don't accept the decisions made by people who voted (or didn't vote, or didn't second), what we're doing is picking at scabs. Picking at scabs is bad for the community. Picking at scabs is worse for the community than "not changing" any single topic that has been shut down for Xmonths. That's what it's all about - keeping this a happy and satisfying experience.
Agreed. I'm actually proposing making it
harder
to open a moratoriumed issue and that old style consensus may be too
easy.
Issues need to be closed. I'm just suggesting that there be a structured process to breaking a moratorium and that it be difficult to do, but doable when overwhelmingly necessary.
Note: This has nothing to do with my position on the war thread vote, and my opinion here may actually be contrary to the best interests of getting that thread to a vote.
It's tidier?
It's
prettier
but I don't see any benefits to it.
