Per -t-'s suggestion, and to make it a little easier for voters reading the proposal, I've made a few changes to the proposal and included the basic structure I'd envisioned. As you can see, all the rules of Book Club would be flexible and subject to change.

Proposal: To have a Book Club thread wherein a specific book (or books) would be discussed Buffista style on a specific time rotation. The initial basic structure for the Book Club thread (subject to modification as contained below) will be:

1) One book a month. The first 3 books will be chosen at the beginning of the thread by participants in the thread with at least a month of lead time for the first book, and every book thereafter. The method of choosing will be suggestions from participants, narrowed down by consensus and, if necessary, a Mr. Poll. Genre diversity and/or books from the literary canon that have stood the test of time will be strongly encouraged. Only books that are readily available at your public library are eligible.

2) Book discussions will not be officially moderated. "Benign" moderation in the form of discussion points, questions and suggestions from readers well-versed in the text will be readily encouraged.

3) All the other details of the book club operation are flexible (including method of book selection, number of books per rotation, length of rotation, and length of discussion period) and are subject to change to suit the preferences of the thread denizens.

Purpose: The purpose of the thread is to accomodate an expressed desire by a number of Buffistas to have such a thread to allow focused and uninhibited discussion on a particular text as well as providing us with an opportunity and excuse to read and discuss books that may be outside our usual genre. And to have fun doing all that!

END PROPOSAL

The following clauses may be added to the final proposal if people think it would help allay some of the proliferation/resource concerns:

Possible clause A: (Auto-close) This thread will automatically close after 6 months unless a vote of confidence is taken to keep it open. The vote of confidence may be prefaced by a standard discussion period in lightbulb at anyone's request and does not require seconds.

Possible clause B: (First to go) At the exclusive discretion of ita (or her designee to monitor board resources) if any thread needs to be suspended or closed to conserve board resources, this thread will be the first one to go.

Also the following has been suggested as a suitable slug if the thread gets created:

This thread is a focussed discussion group. Please refer to [link] for the current topic, and upcoming book discussions. While natter will inevitably happen, we encourage you to treat this like a virtual book club and try to keep your posts in that spirit.

(ETA: I've amended this proposal to comport with some suggestions in the next bunch of posts.)

Adding my apology to the batch. I feel like I've done nothing but step on the toes and bark the shins of people I hugely respect for the last few days, both in this thread and in Literary, which I absolutely and utterly never meant to do. My inability to frame my thoughts coherently without smashing into someone I hugely respect is frustrating the hell out of me, and I'm hugely sorry to anyone whose shins I've barked, and I'm shutting up.

3) Only folks who have read the book under discussion will be able to participate in the discussion. Unrelated natter will be discouraged. (This item is not subject to change.)

This item makes me acutely uncomfortable, and goes against the grain of the non-admin-related portions of the board. Hell, it goes against our FAQ, for heaven's sake.

Q. Is it okay to go off-topic?

A. It better be, because we live for thread drift. In fact, we got so natter-y that BHP started the first Natter Thread. It's a place where Buffistas can chat on all and sundry without distracting from serious Angel lustage and Faith missage on the main threads.

But - isn't that second point directing people to take their natter to Natter?

I take your point, though. I'd be happy to just go with "Natter discouraged" and leave it at that, assuming that generally people who haven't read the book won't have much non-natter to contribute - other than questions, which I'd say we ought not to discourage.

Oh Shawn, please don't let this get you upset.

I want to understand the opinions of our technical resources, because many non-technical people, myself included, seem to be interpreting the statements about our resources differently.

From either a technical perspective, or in the personal opinion of the technical Buffistas, is it that:

1) We're better off with no new threads at all, 'til we're on a cheaper server

or

2) We're better off showing a lot of restraint wrt new threads, 'til we're on a cheaper server

or

3) We're better off showing some restraint 'til we're on a cheaper server

(or something else)

Even if ita (and the others) can't answer based on numbers, I want to know their personal opinions, because their opinions will heavily-to-totally influence mine, and I suspect will influence a lot of people, similarly.

If ita's personal opinion most closely mirrors number 1, I'm not voting for this thread, or any thread, and seriously think we should nix thread proposals, until we're in a better place. If ita's personal opinion is closer to number two, my opinion on this thread will depend on what (if anything) else she has to say. If her personal opinon is number 3, then I'll probably still vote for this thread. If her personal opinion is something else entirely, I won't know how I feel until I see it. If it makes you happy to call that a straw man, so be it.

I take your point, though. I'd be happy to just go with "Natter discouraged" and leave it at that, assuming that generally people who haven't read the book won't have much non-natter to contribute - other than questions, which I'd say we ought not to discourage.

But *no* threads other than the right hand threads have a policy of Natter discouraged. None of them.

Usually, people will at some point go "heh, we should take this to Natter," and do just that. It's practice, but it's not policy.

And there is not a single thread, period, that has a prereq for posting aside from registration in good standing.

But *no* threads other than the right hand threads have a policy of Natter discouraged. None of them.

Really? I didn't realize.

Natter in the Quote threads has always been frowned upon, in my experience. It's not written down, but it's definitely been the practice. Yes, some slips in, but the reminders have occured, in various degrees of gentleness.

3) Only folks who have read the book under discussion will be able to participate in the discussion. Unrelated natter will be discouraged. (This item is not subject to change.)

This item makes me acutely uncomfortable, and goes against the grain of the non-admin-related portions of the board. Hell, it goes against our FAQ, for heaven's sake.

I didn't think of that. The point of that item is to facilitate focus on the discussions and discourage fragmentation into another subcommunity. I'm thinking here like natter is discouraged in Sang Sacre although I guess that kind of happened all by itself.

How about:

3) Only folks who have read the book under discussion should participate in the discussion. Unrelated natter may be gently discouraged. (This item is not subject to change.)

It's not written down, but it's definitely been the practice. Yes, some slips in, but the reminders have occured, in various degrees of gentleness.

Practice != Policy.

Peeps who've been ungentle in their reminders might need a boot to the head with a reminder of that.