I hate that we're all getting so angry and snippy with each other.
I'm proposing something in the spirit of compromise. Because it is in the spirit of compromise, I am not marrying it. I'm proposing it, and that's it. It's up to you all to mull it over, and decide.
What if we set up a book club thread in the Buffista folder at PF, from today, until the end of August, and tried it there, first?
This is different than trying it out in
Literary.
It would have its own thread. It would be at a forum we--as Buffistas--do use from time to time, and to which we all have (or can instantly get) access. We could link it from both our links page, and at the top of the Literary thread here, so we wouldn't get lost.
If we agree to this compromise, we could:
- End this discussion right now
please hold your applause until the end of the post
- Put the ballot on hold until after August
- At the beginning of September (once the religious and civic holidays are done--whenever most folks will be here), we'd reopen lightbulb for ONE day only
For that day, the users of the thread would report back with regard to format, and how the discussion has worked, etc. For that day, people who still have concerns could ask questions.
The next day, we'd start the voting. This would add no days to our discussion and voting process. It would just insert a previously unplanned break somewhere in the middle.
In the meantime, people who have questions and concerns can watch how things work, for themselves--in real time.
This would allow us to:
- Choose our first book (or first handful of books)
- Get over the initial bumps (we know there'll be bumps)
- Wade through some of the administrivia, without harshing the mellow of the Buffistas who are strongly opposed to the thread
- It would also give the curious-but-not-sold some time to check it out
- It would give the supporters time to get it up and running
- It would give those with experience in book clubbing (either cyber or f2f) time to give us some pointers
- It would give our technicalistas more time to work on getting us off of MySQL and/or more time to get a truer picture of how much potential for trouble there is in any given new thread
- It would allow us to admit failure, if this really won't work for us
As part of this compromise, if the measure fails in ballot, but the people who want a bookclub want to keep going, we would be allowed to keep our thread open at PF, in the Buffista folder, under the Buffista name.
What do you think?
(Wolfram, please don't kill me. I love your proposal. I think it would be great to discuss books, in depth, with Buffistas. I love it so much, that I am floored that so many people I like and respect are so vehemently opposed to it. That gives me pause, because I do respect these people. I also do have concerns about lit agenda, and the leader role--because Buffistas are fairly independent minded. Regardless of all that, people--our friendships--our community? These are what is important, and much more important than any given thread. Plus, we might have a better picture of where we are with regard to our open tech issues, by then.)
I'm proposing something in the spirit of compromise. Because it is in the spirit of compromise, I am not marrying it. I'm proposing it, and that's it. It's up to you all to mull it over, and decide.
I don't think we need a compromise. The discussion period is working as we thought it would. People in favor of the thread have said so, people opposed have expressed their opposition, and undecided people ask for clarification from both sides.
Also (in a new spin on a popular argument) shunting contentious threads to PF in the spirit of compromise is a really bad precedent to set, in my opinion.
I, for one, would rather see this go to a vote tomorrow as scheduled (which will also end discussion on this matter for at least 6 months. Yay!)
Wolfram, please don't kill me.
Cindy, your need to find a compromise comes from a place inside you that is impossible not to love. Don't ever change.
Also (in a new spin on a popular argument) shunting contentious threads to PF in the spirit of compromise is a really bad precedent to set, in my opinion.
I think the precedent was already set when the F2F thread had to go there, after last Fall's consolidation, but I understand and agree with your point.
I, for one, would rather see this go to a vote tomorrow as scheduled (which will also end discussion on this matter for at least 6 months. Yay!)
I feel that way in large part too, and am happy to accept whatever happens. I probably fail to come across this way, but whenever something is proposed, whether it is something I love or hate, what I most want is for the will of the Buffistas to be decided. Thank you for considering the compromise, anyhow. You've already compromised a lot, and I admire that.
Wolfram, please don't kill me.
Cindy, your need to find a compromise comes from a place inside you that is impossible not to love. Don't ever change.
No fear of that. This old dog tries the new tricks, but... And thank you, you're sweet. Personally, I'm pulling for this to win. I will vote in favor of it. I think your updated proposal is good (and did not see it until after I posted my compromise proposal). Thanks for all your patience, and hard work.
FWIW, I am now in favor of the clauses you've added at the end.
I feel that way in large part too, and am happy to accept whatever happens. I probably fail to come across this way, but whenever something is proposed, whether it is something I love or hate, what I most want is for the will of the Buffistas to be decided.
Hec said it earlier too, and the same goes for me. If the thread passes I'll be very pleased and eager to jump in with the Book Club. If it fails to pass, I'll be disappointed. And that's it, no hard feelings.
I think testing the book club in Literary, where odds are strong it will fail, is a bad idea. The inevitable result seems to be the "this didn't work in literary, so why do you think it deserves its own thread" argument, which will just suck for everyone
Putting it on LJ or PF is less-bad, but will limit participation (I, for one, would be much less likely to participate if it wasn't on b.org), and I agree with Wolf about the precedent-setting.
It's worth pointing out that the only threads we have actually voted in, other than those involved in the consolidation in which some threads were repurposed, were Minearverse and Wonderfalls Spoilers. Everything else was started under bullshit consensus.
And we voted on Lightbulbs if I remember correctly, but I think you meant non-admin threads.
I have a friend who is in a book club that chooses their reading list for the year at their December meeting. Each person brings 2-3 books to pimp and then the group selects from among them and sets the entire calendar.
This is about how mine works. Whenever we get to the end of the list, we meet to select the next round. Each person comes with a list (the length is of their choosing, some bring 3, some 7), and we pick one book off each person's list. That person is the discussion leader for that book. Discussion leader being a somewhat nebulous term. Some folks have chosen to do some research into the history of the text itself or the time period in which it's written, etc, others just look up a reading group guide to the book, in order to have questions about the book on hand if the conversation lags.
I like the latest proposal, Wolfram.
My opinion on the clauses -- I like Clause A but not Clause B. I don't think this or any other thread should automatically be assigned lead in a pruned thread pile if resources require pruning at some point.
I'll vote for it either way. And I appreciate your work on this. Lots.
