That really kind of sucks.

I just like them.

So do I. But I like the symbolism that the board is giving up something that the writers created as a show of our support.

I know that there are a lot of people swept up in this, I don't mean to ignore that.

But what we are considering officially supporting is not really "the writers" - it's "the strike". It's implicit, but I don't think it should be forgotten or elided. We're not voting over whether writers are deserving of respect or adulation or whatnot - we're voting over whether to cast our support behind a specific labor action. That's why I think we need to vote on it. To me, that's also why the focus is and should be on that group, and not everyone getting a raw deal in Hollywood.

Edited to avoid totally derailing the converstation.

So do I. But I like the symbolism that the board is giving up something that the writers created as a show of our support.

Yeah, me too.

making as statement support of labor and collective action

I appreciate what unions do. But declaring our support for labor and collective action as principles moves us closer to the "we take official political stands." That's my problem.

But declaring our support for labor and collective action as principles moves us closer to the "we take official political stands."

Just to clarify, I don't see this as a blanket statement of principle from us. But it does have that element, and it's why I've come around to the "really need to vote on this" side from my initial "bullshit consensus would be so much easier" reaction.

[Alternatively, you can just take this whole thing as proof that there's nothing so uncontroversial that at least one of us can't overthink and make it so.]

It's as important to me to be making as statement support of labor and collective action in this as it is in support of the individuals behind it.

I do not, under most circumstances, support labor unions. I support the strike because that's the way Hollywood works, and I want the writers to get their fare share of revenues. (Like that will happen.) I am, as are most of us, a writing-oriented television viewer, and, under the current circumstances, I don't see an option for the writers other than a strike.

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

In context. You said the two items were considered. The natural inference was that they were therefore moot. Done. Disposed of. I'm not sure how else you could have meant it. If I misconstrued your meaning, and you really only meant to say that you yourself had considered them, I apologize. Although I fail to see how the fact that you considered them addresses my points in any way.

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

I'm standing 10 feet from a cliff. I drop my canteen. It's now lying 9 feet from the cliff. I decide to forego picking it up because it would bring me one foot closer to the cliff. I neglect to consider that I am not likely to go over the cliff just because I'm one step closer to it.

OK, this is addressing Wolfram's stuff and not Allyson's proposal, but I'm going to post it anyway.

I am almost positive that the discussion of this issue in Bureaucracy started with "I don't know if we need to vote on this..." or at least hit that question pretty early. I am also pretty sure that at some point some discussions that started out with "do we need to vote on this?" ended with "no, let's just consense and go and do" whatever.

I'd go and look, but that's too much like actually doing work.

Anyway, my point is that we have that informal method at hand and have been using it. Do we really need to formalize that in some way?

You said the two items were considered. The natural inference was that they were therefore moot. Done. Disposed of. I'm not sure how else you could have meant it.

They were brought up and discussed. How do you define considered?

I drop my canteen. It's now lying 9 feet from the cliff. I decide to forego picking it up because it would bring me one foot closer to the cliff. I neglect to consider that I am not likely to go over the cliff just because I'm one step closer to it.

I guess where we diverge is in the modelling of the scenario. Your metaphor has nothing to do with what I see before us.

I really do think, though, that this branch of the discussion doesn't belong here--it belongs in Bureaucracy, since it's about something bigger than a show of support for the WGA.