'Lineage'
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!
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.
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.
Agreed.
So I guess the other question is, what happens if we don't get a quorum? Which is 42 voters.
Are there stats available via the host? Is there a way to get an approximate number for active posters to see if our quorum number is still reasonable?
I am for the ban, but a little uneasy about it being a consensus decision. At the very least we do need to give some time for people in case there may be some who are offline on the weekend.
So I guess the other question is, what happens if we don't get a quorum? Which is 42 voters.
I went back & did a head count, and more than 42 of us have weighed in on this already. (I stopped counting past 42.) I would expect we'd all vote.
I counted 61 different people weighing in so far.
Okay, thanks.
Make it 62. I just want him off the board one way or another. As he hurt even one of us, he hurt all of us.
editted to correct condition of statement.