Does the option to re-open a thread need to be made explicit in the proposal to close it?

I think not. If someone wants to reopen later, there's nothing inherent in a thread-closing to prevent people from proposing we do so.

In my opinion, there have been a couple of re-starts already, and future mass book discussion could go into the Literary thread.

The reasons why we opened the book club was that the type of focused discussion we wanted could not be facilitated in Literary. I don't think those reasons are no longer true. I just think there hasn't been enough interest in that type of focused discussion.

Does the option to re-open a thread need to be made explicit in the proposal to close it?

I think the difference is whether it would require a proposal and re-vote to reopen, rather than a group of us just saying that we want to use it again. I think connie's idea would be to close it with the option to reopen it without a formal vote. Is that what was done with LOTR, or do they require a new proposal to reopen?

The reasons why we opened the book club was that the type of focused discussion we wanted could not be facilitated in Literary.

It seems that it can't be sustained outside of Literary either.

My understanding of the LotR addendum is that the thread won't be archived, so it can be reopened. Are you saying that's what you want for Book Club, instead of just proposing a new thread if you get a new idea for how to keep it going?

My point is that there have been months without many posts in Literary, and a few months with a lot of posts in Book Club. My proposal is less that there should never be a Buffista Book Club, and more that we really only need one thread to discuss books, rather than two seldom-used ones.

Edit: And I remember the white-font issues that came up in the original book club thread discussion.

If enough people disagree with the proposal, it won't pass.

I think the difference is whether it would require a proposal and re-vote to reopen, rather than a group of us just saying that we want to use it again.

Yes, but I feel that if it is going to be re-opened there should be a proposal and re-vote.

Is there anything about voting to close a thread that philosophically precludes our far future descendants from voting (via space e-mail with their brains) to reopen it?

My understanding of the LotR addendum is that the thread won't be archived, so it can be reopened. Are you saying that's what you want for Book Club, instead of just proposing a new thread if you get a new idea for how to keep it going?

My understanding is the same as ita's.

My take on our rules and procedures is that any thread could be reopened with a proposal and a vote, but such a vote could not occur until six months after the vote to close (due to our 6 month moratorium rule).

I also agree with ita that the only difference in the LotR thread is that, because it won't be archived, should we decide to reopen it later, we don't need to start a new thread.

My point is that there have been months without many posts in Literary, and a few months with a lot of posts in Book Club. My proposal is less that there should never be a Buffista Book Club, and more that we really only need one thread to discuss books, rather than two seldom-used ones.

I thought you wanted to close the thread for inactivity in which case I'd ask that the thread not be archived so we can reopen it at some later point if there's interest. But if you want Book Club to continue on in Literary, I just don't see it happening in any form.

My proposal is to close the thread. Period. What happens after that is not my decision, nor part of my proposal.

Jesse, it's my understanding that you get the final wording on the ballot as it is your proposal. Or am I wrong?