What purpose do you feel shortening either of those periods will serve that is not being served now, Wolfram?
(Note to Sean: I'm responding in the spirit of trying to explain myself. I see and understand the arguments for voting. I also see that most people don't feel the strange sense of urgency that I do, so of course the voting makes sense to them. But given that I do feel this urgency thing, let me try and help you understand where I'm coming from.)
Simply put, I feel there's an urgency for boards to show broad and visible support for the writers. It's not based on any empirical evidence, and I get that it's totally emotional. As a result, I'm frustrated that we're standing around discussing why we need a vote rather than whether there's any opposition to the idea (which there hasn't been and I'd bet folding money there won't be).
Allyson, bringing the snark, really put it best in B'cracy:
Look, if one of us was like, dying, and a logo would make a magical cure happen, we'd put the friggin logo up, right?
I get that she was kidding, but I really feel like we're bending over backwards to wait a week for this particular vote for only two reasons: 1) to make sure we don't miss the weighing in of one hypothetical buffista who may oppose the idea; and 2) to make sure we don't set a bad precedent. Well instead of alienating the one hypothetical buffista, we're delaying a strong and meaningful show of support to a cause we all think is pretty damn important. That's a price. And in a way, we are setting bad precedent by clinging to our rules when it would be appropriate not to. The Cheesebutt should have some flexibility.
From past experience, support strikers is like supporting people in grief, it's easy to be there at the beginning, it's sticking around that really counts.
To play on the grief example, I feel like we're delaying a grievance call because of a formality that (again in my opinion) was not meant to be used in this context. It's true enough that sticking around really counts, but getting in that grievance call as early as possible means a lot too.
I have no horse in this race, but I wonder if all this talk of unanimity is going to make those who might have voted "no" unlikely to?
I just fear for the next issue that we have a strong feeling is unanimous. The reason I'm kinda steadfast on sticking to our voting procedure is because not adhering to it seems to be the beginning of a very slippery slope to me.
I just fear for the next issue that we have a strong feeling is unanimous. The reason I'm kinda steadfast on sticking to our voting procedure is because not adhering to it seems to be the beginning of a very slippery slope to me.
Agreed. It ensures that noone can look back and say "We did it for x. Why can't we do it for y too?"
I think that to continue to maintain a sense of unity everyone should be heard. It keeps people from feeling invalidated or possibly slighted down the road.
What is a cheesebutt?
The main thing that concerns me about changing our procedure is actually that we have a strong consensus among those who have spoken up. It has been such a strong consensus that I can well imagine that anyone who disagrees might be hesitant to speak up. And while we are a group that tends to love writers, I could well understand that some might not think that supporting this one group is the best way to show it.
I'm glad the proposal was brought and I think it will pass handily, but changing procedures in this case seems like beyond slippery slope to me, more like a greased pole.
Personally, I would hate to be excluded from the process even if I agreed with the outcome.
but changing procedures in this case seems like beyond slippery slope to me, more like a greased pole.
I'd have to agree. The likelyhood of a similar situation to this happening is pretty small, and I can't see how there would be any concensus on a quick fix voting procedure. You could argue there should be a way for a stompy to be able to make layout changes and have it voted on later, I suppose.
Personally, I would hate to be excluded from the process even if I agreed with the outcome.
This, and feelings like it, are why we have the voting process in the first place.
In the ancient past, there was the Bullshit Consensus, and lo, when we wanted something to happen, we talked it to death and in the end the decisions that were made were made mostly based on who had the stamina to keep making their points after everyone else had given up and gone home. And we called it "consensus" and it mostly worked out.
Until, of course, some decisions were made that were less popular than the consensus-builders had been assuming, and people began to speak up about it, and words like "bullshit", "disenfranchised", and "cabal" were thrown around, and there was much unpleasantness and many hurt feelings and eventually we realized that we needed a system where everyone could have a voice and thus was born the Cheesebutt and its associated practices.
