If there is not a link to the documents for procedures off the site, can we finally get that done. get the docs done up and made part of this site?
'War Stories'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
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!
Proposal: Ban Polter-Cow from the board immediately, without going through the usual three-strikes process, for a long-term pattern of harassment of board members.
Given the unprecedented nature of the situation, and the fact that banning is normally a stompy issue rather than a board-wide vote, I'm okay with the collective stompies deciding to skip past steps in the usual procedure as long as consensus on the ultimate need for banning appears to be unanimous. But I do think that we need to allow for enough time for disagreeing opinions to make themselves known, and if there is dissent it should probably be dealt with by a more formal vote so those as yet hypothetical dissenting opinions aren't steamrolled over. Ultimately the community itself is the most important thing, and I want us to do whatever is best for it in the long term.
Right, banning is not a voting issue, but I feel like bypassing our stated procedure should be. In part so that lurkers or others who don't want to post right now but would vote could be included.
But if I am the only one that think so, I would support a consensus to ban.
You're not.
Jessica speaks for me.
I already gave my wholehearted consent (to the consensus) to ban. If others want to move at a more procedural pace, I guess I can understand that. I'm so angry I want it dusted and done, which is one reason I'll let calmer minds prevail.
But I do think that we need to allow for enough time for disagreeing opinions to make themselves known, and if there is dissent it should probably be dealt with by a more formal vote so those as yet hypothetical dissenting opinions aren't steamrolled over. Ultimately the community itself is the most important thing, and I want us to do whatever is best for it in the long term.
What Matt said. I think in this case, even though I would very much like to have consensus and be done, it's important to go about this per the letter of our laws. It's really the only way to give those who don't feel comfortable posting in this thread a voice.
So I guess the other question is, what happens if we don't get a quorum? Which is 42 voters.
I expect a quorum, because we do like to vote. If that doesn't happen I guess all that don't want to see his posts will Marcie? Honestly, I don't expect him to want to stay a member of the group at this point.
Okay, I'm confused now -- what are we voting for? To ban, or to inform him of strikes, etc.? I thought we didn't need to vote to ban.
Either way, I support excluding P-C from the community, but I'm not sure which thing we're actually doing now.