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.

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.

Yep. Reopening the book club thread for Harry Potter talk.

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

You asked me this already. I knew they were discussed. I'm not trying to be flip, but what were you trying to say when you told me they were considered?

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.

It was born from the current discussion. When thread proposals (d)evolve into discussions of thread sprawl and who-we-are-ness we don't kick those discussions back to Bureaucracy. But feel free to move it whereever you like.

When thread proposals (d)evolve into discussions of thread sprawl and who-we-are-ness we don't kick those discussions back to Bureaucracy. But feel free to move it whereever you like.

The reason I'd want it in B'cracy is so that people who don't care about the WGA strike know it's going on and so it's not overshadowed by the actual topic here.

As for other part, I'm going to have to let it go because I scrolled back and still don't see a definition of "consider". It's a semantics issue at this point and I don't have the energy for it.

I have to chime in a little, and sort of support what ND was sort of saying:

I support the writers, but even more than that, I'm against the producers.

However, even more important than either of those things, I support my own pocket book. I've been doing very well for myself work wise lately, but I'm very scared right now, and if the strike continues, I'm very concerned about where I'm going to be financially in three to six months.

There are other people out there who are in that same boat, or much much worse. And there's a lot more of us than there are striking writers right now.

Which brings me back to -- I support the writers in this matter, to the extent that I don't support the producers in all this.

I guess this is a long winded, twisty way of saying that, while I very much support the writers, if this strike lasts at all, there's a lot of people, including me, that are going to be hurt badly by this strike.

Not that I know of any way to show that with our collective support, or that it matters beyond my own financial interests, or that it really relates to this discussion at all, except that again, I think Wolfram's vision of unanimity on this issue, and thus the need to truncate this process, is not as unanimous as one might think.

Which brings me to my final point -- it was essentially mistaken assumptions of unanimity that brought about voting in the first place. Actual unanimity does not nullify that. And I strongly disagree that we should make any changes to our procedure because actual unanimity happens once.

There's an argument that doesn't deal with slippery slopes.

it was essentially mistaken assumptions of unanimity that brought about voting in the first place. Actual unanimity does not nullify that.

Are you sure you're not one-a them writers?