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

I'd prefer not to put in an automatic time limit for this addition. Let it live or die like all the other threads. I do appreciate the A-P pressure, and I think it has made us choose carefully, or work to justify the existence of a thread. But I don't think we're never going to add another thread to the board. Couple years ago we had Buffy, Angel and Firefly all on the air and generating discussion. Now we don't have any of those, nor Wonderfalls, the LoTR movies are done. We didn't add a general TV thread. So, I'm thinking we can afford this addition.

And while it's not fun to close threads, we have done it when it's been necessary. If we get to place where resources require we tighten up, then let's decide at that time based upon which threads aren't getting used.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that one of the people who is consisently AP on EVERY proposal for a new thread is ita - who actually has to deal with proliferation consequences. So adding mandatory reconsideration this to ballot might not be such a bad idea. And it might be good idea not just for this thread, but for the future. That is going back and revisiting all existing threads that were passed without such a provision might be contentious, but if add this provision in this one - we might set an informal precedent. So there would be some pressure to include this provision in all future thread proposals - which might be a plus.

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.

In my head it seemed like including the auto-close in the main ballot made the proposal more comfortable to people who object to it merely on A-P grounds since there'd be zero chance that a proposal without an auto-close would pass. Whereas making it two separate ballot choices means that there's a good chance the proposal will pass without any provisions for closing the thread. Also, people who object to it for other reasons including A-P grounds, may be less apt to vote against it if the A-P issue is deflated in the actual proposal. But again, this made sense in my head.

I honestly don't know what to do. It would help if I knew a lot of people who are against this thread would give it a shot provided it included an auto-close clause.

So there would be some pressure to include this provision in all future thread proposals - which might be a plus.

This would actually be my main reason not to include the provision. I don't want this thread to set precedent. If the community wants these provisions in every new proposal then, like Cindy said, it should be a separate proposal and vote.

I agree an auto-close provision could be a plus in every new thread, but it also could be a minus. And it's certainly a whole 'nother ballgame.

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.

Speaking just for myself, I've pretty much given up arguing the anti-proliferationist line in here. If/When I want to commit the energy to it, I'll argue it on principle in B'cy, but in here, it seems to mostly fall on deaf ears, which makes it not worth my time.

On a slightly related note, after more thought, I do think that the Book Club could be integrated successfully with the existing Literary thread, in the same way that the drabbles work within GWW and the Foamies (used to) work within movies. The more I think about it, the more it feels like a project than a new thread.

I think it could be done in-thread, Jess, but I do think the current thread would lose some of what makes it useful now, and I'd rather have both, frankly. Also, given the hubbub last week that sparked this discussion, I'm not really comfortable essentially repurposing that thread (from its actual use, if not its stated mission).

I want to do this. I think there'll need to be quite a bit of discussion and refinement and maybe trial and error to find what set-up works best for us, and that too will work better in the context of a dedicated thread. A few people have noted that online book clubs can be complicated things. I think we'll have a better shot at putting this together in a way that really adds something to the community if it has the space in which to grow and mutate.

Since we have closed threads, currently used threads, threads that people are attached to, in order to grapple with resource issues, I don't see that we're incapable of doing so again if need be. But I also don't see that, with basically every show-thread show off the air, this one would be likely to either cause or solve usage problems.

On a slightly related note, after more thought, I do think that the Book Club could be integrated successfully with the existing Literary thread, in the same way that the drabbles work within GWW and the Foamies (used to) work within movies. The more I think about it, the more it feels like a project than a new thread.

Wolfram, please see the above from Jess. I know you want to work out the thread particulars if and when the thread passes. But I'm wondering what you (and/or Heather) had in mind. Are you thinking of a once a period (month, week, whatever) conversation, only after all the participants are all done with a given book, or an ongoing and weekly-to-daily type of conversation, as we progress through the book?

What if we tried it once in the current Lit thread to actually see what kind of havoc it caused? Then we'd have proof to satisfy the anti-proliferationists. Jessica brings up a good point about the drabbles. They've worked fine in-thread.