I personally feel particularly bitter about the Literary thread flap, but, y'know, I'm still trying to be a part of this community for better or worse.

And I'm sorry for the kneejerk snippiness on my part that may well have contributed to that, hayden.

As far as a Book Group thread goes, I may or may not contribute to one. I'm already in a face to face book group and there've been a couple of times this year when I didn't finish the book in time for that. It'll probably come down to the books chosen and how much my job it jumping on my head. If we do try the Book Group idea within Literary it won't particularly bother me. It's one of my favorite threads as is, but I enjoy reading in-depth analysis of books, even when I disagree with it. I have no problem with three posts on water symbolism in TS Eliot, two posts on the new Cruise book coming out next week, and three more o n Eliot. (Of course, that's kind of how my mind works anyway.) If it's a significant drain on resources -- stompy time resources and programming time as well as server resources -- I'd be inclined to go against a separate thread.

So, to sum up: book groups -- yay, book group thread -- maybe.

I'd like to see a Book Club tried in Literary rather than under a separate thread.

And what about the argument (though it was in reference to a general tv thread, I think it applies) that general discussions make the conversation unweildy?

If having a new thread isn't going to break the system, it should just be a consideration right? Not the only consideration? (I think maybe that's what I was getting at when I said "ita's always anti") I feel like that's what it's becoming.

This, plus Hayden's note about budgeting our resources and letting democracy have its sway are kind of my take on it.

Also, Cindy's point that people who have argued against thread proliferation have sucessfully (and again I note this without any snark, because I think it's valuable to keep in mind) kept people from proposing frivolous boards. A lot of things are killed in committee before they get to a vote.

If ita says: No new threads, we can't do that.

Then no new threads.

If ita says: We need to be careful about adding threads. Also, people get grumpy when we have to close them.

Then I say, okay, tight rein on threads, but we can still create new ones if there is enough support.

I do think we've kept a tight rein on thread proliferation.

I'm not sure how much bitterness there is about the thread consolidation. People seemed sad, or mildly resentful or inconvenienced - I didn't get the vibe that there was long bubbling resentments (though I could obviously be wrong).

One offshoot of being very involved in creating the whole voting procedures? I'm really very comfortable with what the community decides as a whole. If people vote it down - that's fine. That's what we want (collectively). Sometimes I'll have the minority opinion and that's fine with me too.

If ita says: No new threads, we can't do that.

Then no new threads.

well uh, ita is not the boss of the board.

If she says load is too heavy and we are gonna crash. Bet your bottom that I will propose closing down several threads so that Natter can stay up.

In terms of technical issues? I think she is.

If she said "I don't want any new threads" that would be different from "The board can't take any more threads."

Or if she decided to say it like Scotty, "The board canna take any more, Captain!"

And what about the argument (though it was in reference to a general tv thread, I think it applies) that general discussions make the conversation unweildy?

I think that this is more on the order of people multitasking in show thread when specific subdiscussions are going on. Like, Poster A is sighing over the angsty hotness of Wes; Posters B and C are arguing about the gender implications of the Wes/Fred romance; Posters D and E are asking the heavens why on earth Spike can't be integrated into the show better, etc.

I'm not actually convinced a book club will be successful, but that's more about the commitment required for people to participate. And if it does work, and/or encourage more in-depth discussion of both assigned and nonassigned books in Literary, then I think that's a success.

I'm speaking up because I, like Consuela and some others, get the distinct impression Literary is being portrayed as something that needs to be left behind for substantive discussion to take place -- and I take issue with that. We've had some regular Lit posters say they *don't* feel comfortable with in-depth analysis, which I entirely support their right to say -- but I'll also say the same thing I say in show threads, which is that I still feel entitled to engage in it.

There's also a set of regular Lit posters who have said they would welcome more substantive discussion taking place.

[edited to clarify what I was responding to]

well uh, ita is not the boss of the board.

No, but I trust her as Chief Engineer about our technical resources.

and letting democracy have its sway are kind of my take on it.

well sure and no one has proposed not taking it to vote.

In terms of technical issues? I think she is.

I'd still say no. She reports things and the whole community decides what to do about it. Now, the fact that most of us do not have the technical skills to code or fix the board, that limits our options.

Oh, and I've been meaning to post : [link]

some thoughts on online book groups as well as some links to some.

I don't think ita is saying that we're facing imminent collapse or even near-future collapse. Just that we may be top-heavy with threads when we switch from a dedicated server, and she's not going to support the creation of any new threads that may contribute to this potential top-heaviness. Correct me if I'm wrong.