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.

a group largely made up of writers groupies has to vote to support the writers

Has to? Has to? Please do not presume how I intend to vote.

I think putting together an official, corporate-type statement and putting it on the header is a bad precedent. An overwhelming statement of support by a large number of the citizenry is different from stating "Buffistas.org officially supports the strike". Donations to causes/gifts/special events have always been voluntary.

I don't believe overwhelming support should be construed to mean official, trademarked support. It's a philosophical point, not a judgement on the worthiness of the strike. I can see sometime in the future a question being raised, "Well, everyone who's said anything has said they really love Candidate X, so why shouldn't we put a logo on the home page saying we endorse X?"

I'll add my concerns to Connie's, and add that, while I certainly support the right of the writers to strike, and, for the moment, I support the strike, I don't know enough about the negotiations to say I'll still have that position in a month. What if the writers change their demands and start demanding that all vegans sacrifice goats? Could we then take down the link/logo/whatever (since, until Allyson makes the official ballot proposal, it's not clear to me what we'll even be voting on)? And who would decide that?

So, yeah, I think we need a vote.

I expect to be over-ruled when it comes to voting. I'm a grown-up, I can cope. I will have voted and had my say, that is sufficient.