If we table then we cannot discuss 'til January, right?

I think that's only true if it goes to a vote. What happens if the proposal is withdrawn temporarily?

My understanding is that the six month barrier only comes up if it goes to a vote. If the proposal is pulled this is essentially tabled and we can then bring this discussion back up in B'cracy in two weeks and see about a new proposal at that point.

However, it is not up to us to pull the proposal, that is up to connie.

I agree with Lee. It feels like there's a mad rush going on and part of it goes towards this question:

Has there been this much sturm&drang before when threads spin off? We're talking a lot about board history and culture, and I realize that I don't know much of its history, so maybe this change looks very different to me than it does to others who've been around here longer.

Prior to a year or so (I forget what the changing event was) there were technical issues why additional threads were undesirable because they'd be a drain on board resources. I'm not sure what exactly changed, or when, but if it was still an issue I assume ita would be the first to voice that as a concern. Since she's only been objecting on personal preference terms (as far as I can recall the last several debates), I think that particular issue is no longer a major concern. I think that issue going away has partly led to the recent spree of thread creation.

ita, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong. If more threads = significant drain on board resources, I think that should come into consideration every time a new thread is discussed.

Hey, SA and I agree about something to do with threads!

Is the apocalypse coming?

Connie, would you be willing to table the discussion and vote, just temporarily, with the understanding that the proposal will be made again in a couple of weeks?

Also, I agree that the Cable Drama thread was not a great idea at this point. The volume has been pretty minimal, and the reason it got such an impetus, IMO, is because it was the idea of rolling that into Premium Cable that kinda got this whole discussion started. I STILL think it should have just been rolled into Premium Cable, bright lines be damned, because it seems to me that the people who objected to that, because they weren't going to catch up on Premium shows until DVD, are some of the same people who can't use Cable Drama because they can't keep up with the shows in a bucket thread. I'm sure there are some folks who don't get premium channels that do keep up with Cable shows, but I also think there's a limit to how much you can accomodate the people who can't as opposed to the people who can or don't care. I suppose that limit is the voting, and I wish the Cable Drama proposal had gone as it seemed like it originally would so we could see how that proposal shaked out voting-wise before proposing a separate thread.

Connie, would you be willing to table the discussion and vote, just temporarily, with the understanding that the proposal will be made again in a couple of weeks?

For what it's worth, as someone who is generally pro-new-thread ("New threads for all; tiny American flags for some"), I'd like to second this. With maybe - *gulp* - some additional bureau-blah-blah discussion before going to a proposal. I do think in this case, the four days is not enough time to work out the issues here (and people might like/need a break from "DECIDE NOW!").

With maybe - *gulp* - some additional bureau-blah-blah discussion before going to a proposal.

And I'd like to second this, if people want it. I don't mean to stifle discussion, by any means. I just think this is the wrong time to have a vote on something that is clearly important to the board.

Has there been this much sturm&drang before when threads spin off?

Have you met us?

and maybe 2 weeks from now would be a better time to have this discussion, after we have all had a chance to chill and think a bit.

I don't have a problem with this if connie agrees with it, but I really don't see why anyone thinks the arguments will be any different in 2 weeks.

I could be wrong, but my take on this is that there are obviously 2 separate groups of people looking to talk tv. Most of the people that want a thread for it seem to be saying they won't/don't talk about it in Natter. Most of the people that currently talk about it in Natter seem to be saying they wouldn't talk about it in a separate thread. So, with the exception of what seems like a few people, how much converstion would really be being drawn from Natter to the thread? If there's this huge amount of people that want tv talk in Natter and wouldn't go to a separate thread, then wouldn't there be enough people to continue to sustain talk of it in Natter even if there was another thread?

And, for the record, I love Cindy to death.

I could be wrong, but my take on this is that there are obviously 2 separate groups of people looking to talk tv.

I've come to think that it's more than two groups (though less than ten, possibly even less than five), and the lines are not as bright as you might think.

If the lines between the groups were bright, I think this conversation wouldn't be quite so difficult.