Now that we've been using the system for a few weeks, I feel that the process is too long and involved for the creation of a thread. I don't think thread creation needs four days of discussion. You either want a thread or don't.

The thing is, the process was deliberately chosen to be that length so that people who aren't always around (no weekend access, serious home/work pressure) would not get excluded from decision-making, and would have a chance to express their opinions. Yes, it's frustrating for people who are on all day long at work and can see new proposals as they come up and decide on them immediately, but in the interest of fairness, it has to be that way.

Edited because fari porposals, while funny, not so much with the clarity. (Porpoises! With fairy wings!)

Now that we've been using the system for a few weeks, I feel that the process is too long and involved for the creation of a thread. I don't think thread creation needs four days of discussion. You either want a thread or don't.

Also (in addition to what flea said), the anti-proliferation people, and the anti-change people wanted it to be hard and drawn out to deter easy change and easy proliferation. This is, in part, what I meant about my perception of irony, in that a lot of the people who are seemingly frustrated by the process were in favor of making it really detailed, establishing large minimums, etc.

(People who don't read instructions are the bane of my existence and I crush them with my tiny thumbs. Read and don't understand, okay, but don't bother to read at all? SMASH.)

Sean, your thoughts are some thoughts I have been thinking about too. I'd like to get Allyson's proposal to the floor and voted on, so we can at least say what does and does not work in the thread-creation process, because, you know, we haven't tested it yet.

Once we've tested it, then we'll know whether the full debate-and-vote is a too-long rigmarole for thread creation, or not. Until then, the thing that's slowing down thread creation isn't the process as relates to threads at all; it's a backlog of other stuff that got in the way.

The thing is, the process was deliberately chosen to be that length so that people who aren't always around (no weekend access, serious home/work pressure) would not get excluded from decision-making

No, I get that, flea.

What I was trying to say was that 1) this is one of the things that makes people cry, and 2) it's too much for just thread creation. Fairness aside, I'm really starting to feel that thread creation should just be voted on.

But that's beside the point. The point I was trying to make with my post is that for every me who says even a half an hour of discussion about new thread creation is too long, we should just vote on it, there are others who say that this is vital to the process and suck it up already.

Which doesn't clarify anything, other than maybe we all need to back away from the Bureaucracy for some indeterminate length of time.

Can I vote for fari porposals (Porpoises! With fairy wings!)? Sounds like fun.

I second Beverly's proposal for porpoises with fairy wings.

What I was trying to say was that 1) this is one of the things that makes people cry, and 2) it's too much for just thread creation. Fairness aside, I'm really starting to feel that thread creation should just be voted on.

Yeah, this. I think the voting procedure is fine for deciding on how we will do things, in other words, deciding on what procedures we will follow, for example the discussion and vote on the procedure for dealing with trollish behavior. I think that it is too complicated a system for dealing with things like thread creation. For that we ought to have a procedure. Someone proposes a thread, and if enough people second it, the thread is created. You set the number of seconds to a reasonable number. That seems to me to be a more sensible way to handle issues like that.

But...but...thread proliferation! Wasn't the labyrinthine process a way to keep the number of threads to a minimum? I agree that thread creation and possibly consolidation need not be subject to the full-on legislative process, but ... we can't just have "I want a Pez thread", "Me too!x4" be the whole process, can we? No, really. I'm asking in all seriousness.

But...but...thread proliferation!

I'm not proposing a specific procedure. I am giving an example of something that probably ought to be done procedurally rather than by vote. A proper procedure for thread creation should include checks for bandwidth and such to ensure that the thread is practical. There should also be checks in case there are people who are adamantly opposed to the new thread for non-technical reasons. But I think four days discussion followed by three days voting to create a thread is overkill.

Also, I didn't say the number of seconds would be small. However, I think that if enough Buffistas are interested in a particular topic, then we should do our best to provide a thread for it.

Someone proposes a thread, and if enough people second it, the thread is created. You set the number of seconds to a reasonable number. That seems to me to be a more sensible way to handle issues like that.

On a persnal level, I agree, and would set the number to 12.

But...

I'm where Beverly is. I thought half the impetus behind voting was the idea that process wasn't good enough -- that it wasn't fair to create thread just because enough people asked for it at the right time, and that new threads should have broad community support signified through a vote.