Somebody had suggestions in Literary, and Cindy linked to a site with suggestions, but I'm far too lazy to look them up.

I think a month was suggested to read the book.

I'd agree with that, except I think we'd pick books for the next few months at least all at once, so that people can see what's coming down the pike and have extra lead time if they want it.

All that is for discussion in thread if it passes.

Speaking just for myself, I'm undecided so far, but will definitely vote against it if this is the case. I don't think it makes any sense to create a new thread, knowing it will have structure, and then decide what that structure will be.

I skipped and so I beg forgiveness.

You also missed the part where I suggested an Allyson thread be implemented in the future.

That'll teach you to skim.

ETA: I also agree with Jessica. I think that the way in which the thread will work needs to be hammered out now and included in the proposal.

I would actually have a book in the queue before discussion on the previous ends. And I'm not sure with as chatty and opinionated as we are anyone really needs to lead a discussion. But whatever works.

I don't think it makes any sense to create a new thread, knowing it will have structure, and then decide what that structure will be.

Personally, I might've chosen to hash it out in thread first. Except for the fact that a number of people have mentioned the difficulty of building an online book club, so I think it's important to have some flexibility and not lock ourselves into a particular schedule or set up ahead of time. But before a vote or after, I do think the [old or new] thread is the place for that conversation, not so much this one.

I don't think it makes any sense to create a new thread, knowing it will have structure, and then decide what that structure will be.

I think it's worded that way in the proposal, Jessica. I see your point, though. I'm guessing proposals can be amended if the proposer agrees? It might be worthwhile to create a bare bones structure. Doesn't mean it would have to be written in stone, right? We could word flexibly. Part of the deal, if it goes through, would involve figuring out what works and doesn't as we go along.

I can look at the site Cindy linked to see what some basic suggestions are.

Speaking just for myself, I'm undecided so far, but will definitely vote against it if this is the case.

No, you speak for me, too. I'd need to know more about the structure before I could vote, otherwise it seems I'm just voting for a mess.

Yeah, I don't think we need to have every tiniest detail worked out and a reading schedule through 2005 settled upon, but it'd be nice to have some broad parameters, e.g.:

1. How do we select books? Vote? Work from some master list of Great Works? Let participants nominate their favorites, and get the reading order by random draw?
2. Do we want some sort of moderator/discussion leader, or just let everyone have at it the day a discussion starts?
3. One book at a time, or 2-3 parallel tracks?
4. One book per month? Every two weeks? Or what?

Though if we can have that discussion while simultaneously arguing about proliferation, I dunno. But I also want to have some idea of just what this book club is going to be before I vote on it.

FWIW, I'm for the new thread, while undecided on whether or not I'll participate.

1. I recommend some sort of participants-pick-the-books-without-a-vote system, to avoid angry yelling about votes and nominations each month. The random draw thing is a good idea, or we could just have a constant list of "Who wants to suggest books?" and draw the name (before they pick the book) randomly, with a due date on when they have to submit their choice. A simple program (I could make one off-board, or a better programmer could make a prettier one) could be used for the list of who wants to suggest books, booklist for the future, et cetera. This means that if me, Hil R., and Susan W. all think that How to Eat Fried Worms is the best book in the world, and would nominate it as our first choice, then it won't end up on the reading-order list three times because, after Hil makes us read it in February, I can suggest Fried Green Tomatoes for April.

2. If the person who suggested it suggested it because they wanted to moderate, they can do so. Or, they can waive their right - either giving it up to somebody else (who they think is a good moderator) or letting it be a free-for-all.

3. I'd say one-at-a-time, but 2 parallel tracks might be all right. More might be bad.

4. Every two weeks, with discussion four weeks? That is - book A for discussion April 1-28, book B for April 14 - May 12, Book C for April 29 - May 26... (combines with the 2 parallel tracks in 3, but with the major spikes of discussion-opening coming every two weeks, and not overlapping. And you could easily participate in every other book if you don't mind risking spoilers, which for books hopefully wouldn't be a big deal...)

These are my suggestions. I am in no way important to this discussion, though, so feel free to ignore them. Or whatever. I think it's probably a good idea to have SOMETHING hammered out on how the thread will work before voting, though.