My sense has been that with each new thread, we further fragment the discussion. I don't like that.

But we're also being told that existing threads no longer serve the needs of some people. So how do we fix that?

What could be inserted (and I am just throwing the idea out there -- I have no strong opinion one way or another) is that the thread would automatically be closed unless it were reapproved with a vote of confidence after 6 months or a year.

If it would help allay concerns of this thread becoming a drain on resources, or a fragmented subcommunity, or any other kind of community albatross, I'm willing to include this exact provision in the ballot, provided there be another limited discussion period before the vote of confidence. I feel that basically this thread will either work or it won't, and in 6 months it will be clear whether we have liftoff or not.

It's not clear to me that a Book Club thread would solve the problems brought up in Literary.

It's not clear to me that a Book Club thread would solve the problems brought up in Literary.

It won't and it's not meant to.

It's not clear to me that a Book Club thread would solve the problems brought up in Literary.

Do you mean the anti-intellectual ones? I don't get the impression it's designed to be the Literary Panacea Thread.

Some people figure it will solve theirs, though.

What could be inserted (and I am just throwing the idea out there -- I have no strong opinion one way or another) is that the thread would automatically be closed unless it were reapproved with a vote of confidence after 6 months or a year.

That's an idea Jon, and admittedly, if it became a deal-breaker, I would probably support it. It makes me a little uncomfortable though, because we've not made other threads pass this test (have we?--correct me please, if I am misremembering). It also seems to me (I could be remembering my own emotional reactions, rather than actual history) that I don't hear much in way of the anti-proliferationist philosophy, when the proposed thread is one that personally interests the more hardline anti-proliferationists.

That said, if this sort of limit is going to be added to the proposal, I'd rather see it be a separate item on the ballot (cc: Wolfram). In other words, on the ballot we'd have a first item that asked for a yea or nay on the thread itself. Then there would be a second item on the same ballot, that asked if we should have a vote of confidence at X months (and separate items for any other stipulations like "the subcommunity argument will never be enough to keep this thread open, if it loses it's purpose, and turns into another segregated natter thread).

ita is right, and makes a very strong point when she says:

The idea of five people holding it near and dear and everyone else thinking it's not working isn't outrageous.

Threads build sub-communities. That makes them sticky.

We know that's true. And there are lots of threads that don't interest any given number of us, and often, that number might be greater than the number of regulars in a given thread, but we don't shut them down even though we could, because we all have our pets, and so we empathize, even when we don't personally see a thread as necessary.

I'd almost rather see what Buffistas think about a separate proposal that put all threads—or all new thread proposals—to this test, than see us apply it specifically (and randomly, imo) to this proposed thread, seeing as it isn't going to host a troll-magnet sort of topic. Almost. Almost. Almost.

Let me be more clear and stress my above "I'd almost rather see..." a bit more. I don't want to propose any of what I've mentioned, and am not proposing it. In fact, I am 95% against it. However, I am mentioning it, because it doesn't seem right to me somehow, to subject one thread to a test to which we haven't subjected the others, particularly since our cheesebuttalist document already provides for un-doing things. That we don't undo, does seem to support to some extent, Hec's assertion that:

I don't suppose folks would hold the thread near and dear if it wasn't working. And if it is working then its doing its job.

It seems to my memory that the anti-proliferation stance grew stronger (or at least more noticeable to me), when we added Music and Movie threads (and possibly the LotR film series thread). If Buffistas feel a need to more formally limit thread proliferation (it seems to me that it is well limited through non-official means, already), then I would rather see us address the proliferation issues separately and as a whole, rather than impose limits on a random thread, somewhat arbitrarily.

(And a part of me—5%—would rather see that, than have to slog through all the anti-proliferationist objections to every single thread proposal. But that's the part of me that would propose this, and I'm beating that part of me to death with a sledge hammer, as I type.)

Again—and I can't stress this enough—I'd rather we not take this step in any official way, either specific to this proposed thread, or to all threads, or to just new threads in general.

I can see the wisdom of building in a vote of confidence when proposed thread-focus (e.g. Politics/War/Election) is likely to attract trolls, but not so much for threads created for a typical topic of conversation.

I always feel like we get ourselves in a tizzy when we get too official about stuff. People generally understand the proliferation issues. It seems to me that there's some bullshit consensus about this, otherwise, wouldn't we see a lot more proposals around here, than we actually do? There are plenty of threads I'd propose, if I didn't share the anti-proliferation view to some extent.

I'm thinking that, at least for me, it would be very helpful to know several weeks or even a few months in advance so I'd have time to read.

Not to mention time to track the book down at a library or UBS if you're like me and money is an issue.

I'm for the new thread because I like the idea of a Buffista book club, but don't want it to crowd out the existing function of Literary. I'm interested in participating, but am hesitant to commit, both because I've never done a book club before and am not sure it would work with my readerly quirks, and because, really, I've got plenty on my plate as it is these days. But I'm interested.

That said, if this sort of limit is going to be added to the proposal, I'd rather see it be a separate item on the ballot (cc: Wolfram).

I actually thought about offering this first - even went so far as to type the separate item idea into the little box - but I figured that it may not be enough to satisfy many of the concerns experessed here if it's not part of the primary ballot.

I agree with all your points in theory (ita really zinged it with her standard anti-proliferation post), and it would be nice if the A-P issues could be dealt with all at once and separate from each thread proposal. I also agree that I think the community is very timid about proposing threads because of the A-P issues, but I think that's a good thing too or we'd be overrun with useless threads.

But, while I certainly don't love the idea of including an automatic closure clause in the ballot, as a practical matter I just want to see this thread given a shot, while making the greatest amount of Buffistas comfortable with its existence. And I think the automatic closure clause, though annoying to some, is ultimately harmless.

I'm interested in participating, but am hesitant to commit, both because I've never done a book club before and am not sure it would work with my readerly quirks, and because, really, I've got plenty on my plate as it is these days. But I'm interested.

FTR, Susan is me. I don't know if this thread is going to work at all, and even if it's going to work for me. But I'm itching to find out.

One thing I think would probably help a thread like this (and makes me salivate a bit at the prospect) would be to have somebody lead the discussions who knows the material particularly well. We wouldn't have to do this for everything, but I would love to do a section with Jen on Shakespeare's sonnets, or Hayden on Cormac McCarthy or JZ on G.K. Chesterton (off the top of my head).

Basically I'm for any thread that's going to foster substantive discussion, and I think this is a worthwhile experiement. I think we've got the resources to accomodate it too.

I actually thought about offering this first - even went so far as to type the separate item idea into the little box - but I figured that it may not be enough to satisfy many of the concerns experessed here if it's not part of the primary ballot.

How so? (I'm not playing devil's advocate--I really don't understand the distinction.) It seems to me that if it is the collective will of the Buffistas who choose to vote on this, will approve the thread only if it is limited, then enough people will vote yea on the limiting item.

I also agree that I think the community is very timid about proposing threads because of the A-P issues, but I think that's a good thing too or we'd be overrun with useless threads.

Yes, and yes, it is a good thing. We don't want to become something that isn't us (that makes sense in my brain). As much as I dread reading through the a-p argument each time, it has been a great deterrent to adding threads that wouldn't be a good fit for us, or for just adding them willy nilly. It serves its purpose.

But, while I certainly don't love the idea of including an automatic closure clause in the ballot, as a practical matter I just want to see this thread given a shot, while making the greatest amount of Buffistas comfortable with its existence. And I think the automatic closure clause, though annoying to some, is ultimately harmless.

I'm with you in spirit. This is why I said I'd vote for it, if it were a deal breaker. I'm just not sure it is. I guess that's why I think the limit issue should be on the same ballot, but as a separate item, rather than a clause of the main--to get a better picture of how a-p we want to be--officially, that is. We know a few vocal people are very a-p. We know a few vocal people are not a-p. We know a few vocal people are middle of the road wrt a-p. I guess I'd like a truer measure of this. However, ultimately, this is your baby, and I'll support you either way. And ultimately, the a-p issue is not why this thread is open right now, so I'll shut up about it.

I'm with you in itching to find out if we could make a go of the book club.

JZ on G.K. Chesterton

t salivates