A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Did we ever decide upon whether we would trash the voting if say, voter turnout was so consistently low, we'd have to concede that we had moved to an advocacy based decision making process?
I think what we have decided on a consensus basis, is that in extreme circumstances we're allowed to break the rules. If this place gets to a point where ballots never get the MVT, then I think folks will agree that changing the rules is appropriate. Although I think that situation would be more a sign of low board participation in general (see my previous comment...
t edit
I meant my post here: Jon B. "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" May 16, 2003 4:15:20 pm EDT )
Sophia, I'd rather have a small team of advocates make community decisions on behalf of the community. I'm really very clear on what the criteria for that group should be, but posting it? I've already lost enough status on Zoe.
Allyson, you've made it pretty clear whom you want making decisions, and whom you don't want involved in the process. I'm also for a smaller team of advocates making community decisions, but when I suggested such a thing I got creamed. But I think you spend more time complaining on how much you hate this thread, and my posts in particular, then on proposing viable solutions to the problems you are seeing. And this is really not helpful.
Allyson, you've made it pretty clear whom you want making decisions, and whom you don't want involved in the process.
I think you'd be very surpised.
And this is really not helpful.
YMMV
Jesse-- you just about made me bust a gut.
Just so we're all clear, I was only kidding about trying to solidify a bullshit consensus.
Also, reading WX Bureacracy 1 (date 2001) is actually amusing me because we are fighting about thread proliferation. pretty much with the same posters and the same arguments. No wonder we all got irritated, it was the same arguement for 3 years!
Jesse: The Gang of One.
She's so certain, she consenses with her own self.
Allyson, it sounds from your posts as though you think our regular voter turnout of 85-100 is low.
I don't think it is. We may have over 900 registered users, but that's everyone who ever registered. I'd be surprised if our bank of active posters ("active" meaning more than 1 post/week) was more than 150 people. Out of that, an 85-person turnout is pretty good.
As for moderation via a Council of Watchers, eh. I'm another one who has suggested it and seen it get shot down before my page refreshed. I don't think it would be the Worst Idea Evah, but I do think the process of deciding who they were, assigning duties, and figuring out governing policies (things like lifetime duty vs. short terms, elected vs. appointed vs. randomly chosen, etc.) would tear this board apart FAR more than it would save us trouble.
