Oooh, oooh! What if it replaces the random quote generator in the upper right? 'Cause, y'know, we wouldn't have the quotes without the writers!

That's made of awesome, right there. I love it.

---

I'll add that to the proposal before voting.

When are we voting?

---

I have yet to see any dissent to the writer's position in this strike

This is so not the point. The vote is where we'd allow people to express their dissent. And even if the vote is 100% for--we don't get to decide what quiet people are thinking just because we're all gung ho.

Doesn't the fact that connie's stood up and said she doesn't think it's a good idea count for anything?

---

Aw, I think it's cute, but it seems like punishing ourselves for no reason! It's not like anyone gets residuals from the RQG anyway.

Layout-wise, though, it's a fine idea.

---

Voting is supposed to start tomorrow at noon, Allyson.

---

Doesn't the fact that connie's stood up and said she doesn't think it's a good idea count for anything?

First of all, I applaud connie for speaking up. And clearly I read her post thoroughly when I responded with my post about the precedent argument. Which was her argument. She did not dissent to the writer's position.

Where did I give you the impression that I thought her post didn't count for anything?

---

Okay, here's the thing. I've been quiet about this, and I've been trying to formulate whether or not to speak up.

I'm actually on the fence about this issue.

This may seem like splitting hairs to some folks, but my position isn't so much a "Support the writers" as it is a complete lack of support of the studios.

I'm probably oversensitive about this, but I hate the feeling of the writers getting this outpouring of support while so many of the other folks being hit by this situation are either a last paragraph mention or not mentioned at all. The producers are the ones causing this. I guess I'd rather see a logo that says Buffistas think the studios are evil, than one with another supporting the writers.

---

The vote is where we'd allow people to express their dissent. And even if the vote is 100% for--we don't get to decide what quiet people are thinking just because we're all gung ho.

This. We don't know what the board as a whole thinks on an issue until we vote.

Doesn't the fact that connie's stood up and said she doesn't think it's a good idea count for anything?

Counts for me. And it shows (me) that there is not purely unanimous consent on this issue.

---

I feel like we're too entrenched in process, and get itchy when we're (to my mind) needlessly bureaucratic. It makes me sad that what is essentially a fairly joyful act has to be so orderly (i.e. a group largely made up of writers groupies has to vote to support the writers). That's my problem.

I agree with this 100%, but I respect the structure of the community and the community's need for a vote.

My problem with shortening the procedure is that it makes an assumption on unanimity

An assumption of *majority,* maybe (or 50% +1, or whatever the cheesebutt says a vote has to have to win), but not unanimity. Has a vote ever been unanimous here?

We don't know what the board as a whole thinks on an issue until we vote.

A vote here doesn't ever really indicate what the board as a whole thinks about an issue; it indicates what 42 to 100-ish people at any given time think about an issue.

Like I said, I respect the community's need for a vote. I'm cool with it. But I just don't want people to start viewing voting, or the results thereof, as some sort of uber-Buffistas.org definitive statement.

---

I'm not sure I understand your POV, ND.

---