Buffy ,'Lessons'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
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.
It's splitting hairs and the reason I didn't really want to bring it up is because of that. I should delete.
Wolfram, I'm sorry. I don't get your argument. We're voting on the idea of showing support for a position as a board, and you don't think we should vote, even though some people don't support the position?
I understand what ND means. I think. As in, the writers strike is putting a lot of people out of work, and so into hardship. I know I wouldn't want to be a PA in LA right now.
However, I don't think - personally, of course - we would all agree studios are evil.
Evil may be too strong a word. I guess my deal is that I'd much rather us be taking a stand against the studios and what they are doing to all the folks on these productions instead of taking a stand with just one group.
ita, I'm not saying we shouldn't vote even though some people don't support the position. I'm saying that we should sometimes consider whether 1) a vote is necessary; and 2) whether we can shorten the voting time to move faster on matters of urgency.
Also, I'm not arguing against this vote anymore because I understand the community wants that level of comfort of following procedure and giving everyone a chance to weigh in, and the community doesn't feel the urgency that I've conceded is something subjective that only a few of us feel.
I was making a general point that reliance on precedent and slippery slope arguments can be misplaced.
I guess my deal is that I'd much rather us be taking a stand against the studios and what they are doing to all the folks on these productions instead of taking a stand with just one group.
I get this. But supporting the writers doesn't mean we don't support the other folks. I've also seen some writers express lots of support and sympathy for the "collateral damage" that has resulted from the producer's evilitude. Why should it be an either or?
I'm saying that we should sometimes consider whether 1) a vote is necessary; and 2) whether we can shorten the voting time to move faster on matters of urgency.
As far as I can see, those two things were considered.