3 and 6 are the numbers. but I was thinking 3 months , cause things in the real world can change that fast.

but I was thinking 3 months , cause things in the real world can change that fast.

I agree with this, but I think 6 for the anti-friction factor. Because among other things you could raise an issue every three months if you felt very strongly about it. Four times a year. And that would feel irritating. But if it came up every six months, that'd be a lot easier to deal with.

With fear and loathing, I place my tippy toe into the murky waters of politics. I come down on the side of three (3). If someone feels so strongly about a thing that they continually raise it, there is something that needs to be dealt with.

..or some five people with a wicked big axe to grind. It takes five people to make a formal proposal, that's all, as we voted.

And if those five, or a rotating five out of twelve, keep bringing up the Nutty Cheese Butt thread, and it keeps getting voted down 78 to 12, whose needs are being served?

I second the Nutty Cheese Butt thread.

Good point, though. How about some kind of control on repeat proposals beyond just once? Two rally attempts, then it is dead, dead, dead.

Are we even gonna be able to sustain four whole days of discussion on 3 or 6?

(Which brings up another point, about what to do if that happens regularly, but that can wait for some other proposal or discussion*)

I really want to natter back at Hec & meara, but I won't. Consider yourselves secret messaged too or improperly encouraged in your lasciviousness.

Nutty's got me convinced at six months, but HEY! we don't have to worry about consensus building anymore, right? Right?

Off to check out 100+ posts in Kafka...(!?)

(*note: WHAT HAVE WE DONE!?)

Four Days does sound like a long time, but not everyone is on at the same time or even checks the board once a day. Plus four days could give us some cooling off time (maybe).

I like the idea of 3 months, 6 just seems too long. I agree that we need some kind of limit on how many times an issue can be raised.

I'm leaning towards 6 months, but that only because I can imagine wanting to poke my own eyeballs out if something kept being raised again and again.

I feel new thread votes could be brought back up every three months without much friction.

Bah! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hooo! t wipes tears from eyes A ha ha ha ha ha ha hee hee ho hoo hoo!

I like four months better than three months or six months.

How about some kind of control on repeat proposals beyond just once? Two rally attempts, then it is dead, dead, dead.

See, but that requires another vote/decision. If we go with six months we've got a ready brake on that. I cannot emphasize enough that this issue is in place primarily to reduce friction. As somebody who has been very active in discussions about board protocols since back at WX, we're trying to self-medicate here. We know we talk a lot. We know we analyze and dissect. But unchecked we swallow our own asses whole and everybody gets really really grumpy.

We are looking at how to preserve open discussion and democratic decisions without eating our own asses. So we have open talks, but we put a stop on it at some point. Six months is better than three months. For me at least, it is much more important to have the friction removal / brake aspect in place than it is to have quick-acting responsive board changes. Slow changes are better in most cases.

It's been very very difficult to move to a voting process. These wheels should turn slowly.