Jesse - any opinion on putting the 6 months up for a vote by its lonesome?

I would love to put 6 months up by its lonesome. And when it passes, we can reconsider it in six months if we want.

How about how I worded it, with a gut-check (just on the moratorium itself) at 3? In other words, in three months, we say, "we're half way through our first discussion moratorium. Let's have a votee of confidence that we chose well."

That way, nobody is really kicked out of the process. If those of us who know three is right, are in fact right, everyone will see our brilliance by that time.

If those of us who know three is right - end up being wrong (you know, for the first time in our lives), the six months stands. It lets us introduce the moratorium, but it doesn't nail us to it, if we find in practice that it's too long of a time.

My suspicion is that in three months, we'll think three months passed really quickly, and this is coming from a 3-is-the-one-true-number person.

And just FYI, some votes are coming through, so we'd better make sure everyone knows what's going on.

OKay, people. I go away for the Great Nutty Spring Leg-Shaving Event, and we go 100 posts into madness and indecision!

What are we fighting about, here? I really suspect the issue is that not enough people care for 3 or 4 to make either one the choice. When people have said 3, or 4, on this thread, they've mostly said "shorter time" but not particularly differentiated between 3 and 4, except inasmuch as they break up the year into different fractions. (I tend to see an edge for 3 in this instance, because several people have mentioned that doing things every 1/3 of a year is weird.)

The preferential voting thing causing a lot of anger and craziness over something that is, at best, peripheral to the question at hand. I suggest we drop it for now just so we can get the actual proposal, which is actually on the floor, to a vote.

I like Cindy's ballot, but I would modify its phrasing to seem less fatalistic:

" After a proposal, discussion and vote, further discussion on a given matter should be closed for 6 months some time. If this initiative passes, we agree at three months from the day (date) the poll closes, to take a vote of confidence on this decision (only), to see if we think 6 months is too long, too short, or just right. Should this time period be longer or shorter?

Yes ______ ( ) shorter -- 3 or 4 months

No ______ ( ) longer -- 6 months

No Preference ______

Whatever the results, we will revisit this decision in three months (July 1, 2003) to take a vote of confidence on this decision (only): to see if the 'moratorium' time period we voted in is too long, too short, or just right."

I tend to agree that 6 months will win, unless there's a groundswell I don't know about. But that allows the "vaguely 3 or four 4" crowd to coalesce around the single idea of shorter, exactly how short to be determined later. In fact, My suggestion is based pretty solidly on something Sophia suggested 3 days ago, that I liked, but I've taken out the simplified preferential part of it. So, thanks Sophia.

Going Forward
On a technical note, I think it worthwhile that the proposer of a proposal be the one who (a) writes the initial proposal; (b) writes the final proposal after 4 days of Light Bulb; and (c) makes the announcements in Press. It clarifies where the onus lies (and takes it off Sophia's shoulders, unless it's her proposal). The incentive for clear and easy ballots is that you won't get a minimum turnout if nobody can understand the ballot. Or everyone will vote for Pat Buchanan, and then the apocalypse will commence.

I like Cindy's proposal -- using that method will actually find out what everyone wants instead of supposing or guessing.

Someone who thinks 6 months is too long, but still thinks this unwillingness to give is more wrong, and recognizes that six is probably going to win, so doesn't understand why we're making this so difficult (not in the mathy way, in the emotional way), and who, if she were an "I told you so type person" would remind everyone this is why I thought "most votes" should beat out "majority", but I'm not so I won't.

I'm gray, but I gotta say the CRAZINESS MUST STOP! See Cindy. Cindy is an example to us all. The emotional intensity on this thread strikes me (just my little opinion) as out of proportion to the issues at hand.

The ballot looks fine AND (yes, I can agree with two different things AND be happy with them in the hopes of moving things forward) the 6 months only option is fine also. I think a run-off is a method that more people feel comfortable with. Better? I don't know, but I don't think one method is so superior as to warrant the frustration level that is apparent on this thread.

Other issues will come up that have more than a yes/no option. Establishing a method is good. Then let's be done with it.

What we cannot have is people beating an issue to death. That way lies madness, that way drives people from the discussion and eventually the board. That is the reason we are now voting and now putting a time limit on issues to be rediscussed.

I'm willing to go with the Cindy (post #492) if that's what causes the least all caps posting.

Yes? Everyone? Speak now (please not at 11:59am) or forever gnash your teeth.

Sure.

yes.