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.

As far as I can see, those two things were considered.

No, they weren't. A proposal was made, quad-seconded, and the thread was opened. Even if you argue the affectation of the proposal is a Consideration of the first thing - which I would argue is not and rather an indication that five people considered whether a vote was necessary - the second thing was certainly not considered and apparently can't be under our current rules.

Also, I'm not sure what your point is. That once a thing is "considered" I should stop expressing my opinion about it?

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

I have no horse in this race at all, but in the interest of smoothing feathers, I think what was meant that the person thinks it is silly that we have to vote at all, not that we each feel that we need to vote yes because of external pressure.

Thank you, Sophia.

Quick cameo to say that I don't think saying we support the writers in any way implies that we don't support the crews. I think once we decide if we want to show our support for the WGA, we can certainly consider a separate proposal saying that we also support the crews and such.

ETA: A kind of "Bring everyone back to work" or something. Not sure. But I agree with the spirit of ND's desire to support beyond the writers; I just don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

No, they weren't

I considered it. I viewed the ongoing discussion on the topic as consideration. How are you defining the term?

I just don't see your logical fallacy. Could you dumb it down a bit for me?

By the way, the idea of putting the logo where the random quotes is? A great idea.