I may have written a La Isla Buffista a while back.. hmmm...

Ahh. Here it is:

[link]

I guess it never made the filk site, like so many of my filks don't.

Daniel, just mail it to DX. I am lazy, and have a backlog of stupid filks I need to send him from various threads.

Daniel, send it to me. I do skip, especially if you're posting in the show threads.

S cr t ssag f r Ci d : Ci d !!!!!! I' g i g t g t u f r this!

muahahahahahaha

Cindy, don't you mean uahahahahahaha ?

Good morning, everyone. Remember the Buffista Law thing? I've been working on it. As a general test-of-waters, I've assembled the Voting section, and would like comments. There are some gaps where I haven't nailed down specific citations. Mostly what I'm curious about is, Does this describe what we have done and/or agree to? Is this worded clearly? Do we need more things, like a "How a proposal becomes Buffista Law" checklist? Email to vehemently @ yahoo.com, or just quote & post here.

Voting

First suggestion of voting was B1#3573. Lyra Jane fleshed out her idea, B1#3596. Voting formally proposed on as the means of avoiding the need for "the greater consensus" during a WX sojourn, as summarized by Sophia Brooks B1#5016 thusly: a consensus, but sometimes it ends up being whoever is left after people get tired of talking making the decision."

Voting as a formal procedure was proposed by Sophia Brooks Feb. 25, 2003 (Press #367), and ratified March 3, 2003.

There has been some (but it's not unanimous) dissatisfaction over our
usual method of determining consensus. Several people suggested we 
start  voting on the big things. Funny thing is, it's such a hot topic, and 
there’s no way to determine whether or not we want to vote on things, 
without taking a vote on it.

A wording clarification was proposed by Jon B. (Press #398), March 5, 2003 and ratified March 9, 2003. Further clarifications of the voting procedure were proposed by Sophia Brooks, March 16, 2003 (Press #415) and ratified March 19, 2003.

We [hereby] create a voting system for community decisions that do not require immediate action. Exemptions: Thread naming, disciplinary action against trolls (although the process itself [has] come up for a vote) and tasks currently performed by Stompy Feet, including but not limited to board maintenance.

Someone with a community decision to propose may discuss it preliminarily in Bureaucracy, but should signal with bold font and officious-sounding language when he/she is formally proposing. More than one Buffista [is] needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote. [The] minimum number of people who have to agree [in Bureaucracy] with the original proposer before a proposal moves to formal discussion [is] 4. (Press#367) These four agreeing people ("seconds") need not want the proposal to pass; they are merely agreeing it needs to be brought to a vote.

Upon the proposal being seconded enough times, the discussion moves to a separate thread for actual voting discussions. (Press #415) Title, slug and description of this thread, now called "We're Screwing In Light Blubs, AIFG!", were consensed on in B1#________. Only Stompy Feet may open Light Bulb. The opening of Light Bulb begins with a repost of the proposal, and a post in Press, by the proposer, announcing the proposal under discussion and supplying a link to Light Bulb. In this thread, the proposal is picked apart and debated from the moment the proposal makes its seconds until Midnight (board time) of the fourth full day of discussion.

Seven days' time is sufficient to discuss the issue. The week would be broken down thusly: Discussion: Days 1, 2, 3, and 4. Voting: Days 5, 6, 7. When there is a conflict for major holidays (to be defined) we will make accommodations (to be defined) as needed. We will vote later on whether discussions end on day 4 or continue during the votes. (Press#367) This was decided subsequently (Press#415), that discussions do end on day 4, and a Stompy Foot closes the discussion until the next proposal is seconded, according to procedure.

When the fourth full day of discussion is completed, the original proposer writes the text of the ballot. (B1#_____ consensus) It is up to the proposer to write text which is not confusing, and which presents tenable choices to the voters. The proposer may want to read Light Bulb carefully, and accept suggestions from debaters, but the proposer makes the final decision of what will go on the ballot and how it will be phrased. The proposer sends the text of the ballot to Jon B. (cf. B1#6384), who creates the web ballot, and posts the ballot text in Press with a link to Jon B.'s web ballot (Sophia Brooks, B1#5415).

You may use email, if you cannot make the web ballot work. Jengod, Press #371: "If you do not use the voting form please use the subject line Buffista Ballot when submitting your vote to votes@buffistas.org." On rare occasions when the voting gets all frelled up, there will be copious announcements by the vote-tallyer or by Jon B. about what went wrong and what to do.

Sophia Brooks Press #368: "You may vote yes, no or abstain from the vote for each separate item. Obviously, you may only vote once."

[We shall have] a minimum number of community members voting on any item in order for the vote to count. (Press#367) How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? 42. This was taken as an average of voted suggestions. Mean, median and "binary walk" methods of averaging were compared, and all tended to come close to 42. Votes of "no preference" count toward this [Minimum Voter Turnout]. (Press#415)

A simple majority vote is sufficient to enact changes for any issue brought up for vote. (Press#367) "Simple majority" means 50%+1. We understand this may result in the need for runoff votes or other strategies, depending on how ballots are written. (Press #398)

There is currently a moratorium in place on proposing proposals which have already been discussed and voted down. Sophia Brooks sent it to vote March 25, 2003 (Press #441), and we ratified March 29, 2003.

After

After a proposal, discussion and vote, further discussion on a given matter should be closed for 6 months. [W]e agree at 3 months from the day (date) the poll closes, to take a vote of confidence on this decision (only), to see if we think 6 months is too long, too short, or just right. The vote of confidence is scheduled to take place June 29, 2003.

Cindy B1#8873 clarified the "vote of confidence": "At three months, we'll see how the moratorium feels, talk about it and vote whether we think it's too long, too short, or just right. If "just right" gets a majority, I would imagine things would continue on course. If a majority of us feel it's either too long, or too short, I think we'd have to decide then, how we wanted to handle it, and whether we wanted to do so only going forward or not."

The consensus of Bureaucracy (B1#_____) was to "grandfather" in subjects which had been discussed prior to the decision to go to voting. If it was discussed and not implemented during our consensus-only period, it falls within the moratrium described above.

***

Sections in red are quotations. B1 means Bureaucracy 1 at Phoenix only. Any and all comments welcome. Must go eat breakfast. Also find pronouns.

Very nice, Nutty! The only thing I'd ask is that the decisions be in red, not the quotes -- I have a hard time not just reading the red parts. Yes, I could never buy used textbooks that were already heavily underlined, because it would take me three times as long to read, since I would just read the underlined parts. Possibly this is just my issue.

And, not to start trouble, but wasn't there at least one proposal that got four seconds a long time ago and then was never discussed and voted on? If so, and the original proposer still cares, I'd say they can open up the formal discussion whenever.