This is why it's confusing! Right here! We'll be almost at the point where a decision is about to be made (we're almost to the time to vote on the grandfather issue right?) and then someone will say something that just turn the issue on its ear.

Which is why I got so pissed off about the warn/susupend/ban issue--we had that all made out and the first time we used that people were like "no no it should be different, let's do this". And so we changed it.

And now a few people are saying "well, thread issues shouldn't be voted on like we do with everything else" at the exact point where we are basically voting on that issue.

The way I understand it is if the grandfather proposal issue passes we will not be able to revisit the way threads are created until whenever. That we will only be able to use the current method of proposal, seconds, 4 day discussion and then voting.

Am I right that if this passes then we won't be able to revisit the way threads are created?

Burrell, before you give up, I'm not actually advocating anything other than finding a way for this to be more painless.

My opinion on the thread creation process is really a secondary consideration.

Your reaction is exactly what I'm talking about. What I'm most concerned with is how to stop people from walking into the B'cracy, freaking out completely over whatever is being discussed, and running away screaming.

Whether this is the right process for thread creation just happened to be something I took as an example, and I even made a point of pointing out that I knew that somebody would have your reaction to what I was saying.

Am I right that if this passes then we won't be able to revisit the way threads are created?

Well, yes, you would be right, if we were actually to vote on it. But we're in no danger of that.

This was just something that came up in the course of conversation, people! It was never meant to actually turn into a policy debate, or be formally proposed to await seconds.

Let's all just take a deep breath and relax. Which is what I've been advocating all morning.

Wait. I thought the voting process was going to address PRIMARILY thread creation. Now we want thread creation to be a separate procedure?

I officially give up.

Also giving up. People who didn't want the music thread, were angry, because they felt like it got forced in. People who did want the war thread were angry, because they felt like it got delayed out. And lather/rinse/repeat.

Voting was created primarily to address thread life: creation/shuttering/proliferation/limitation

Giving up. Exactly now.

Sean, you have no idea how hard it has been for me to keep straight what the grandfather proposal means and it's been almost impossible for me to determine how I want to vote that I'm just not going to vote at all.

For whatever reason I can't get my head around this. I know what Grandfathering is. When I read an explination I kind of get it, until someone else tries to explain it to me and then I get confused again, I'm not clear about the implications, and during all of this people keep throwing out new ideas and new issues and it's becoming impossible for me to keep straight what is directly connected to the vote and what is just conversation.

It's making me feel incredibly dense and stupid.

Edited to say---please do not try and explain it to me again.

Also, I know we can't please everyone all the time. We haven't been able to please everyone all the time from the very beginning. My frustration right now has nothing to do with the voting process itself. I'm frustrated because I can't get my head around this one issue.

So... let's all chill, and not change anything right now, and go have some lunch and maybe ice cream, and reconvene sometime later.

Sean, I do sort of see what you're saying. We're a multiplicity of voices, all yammering in the wilderness. That does sometimes make for irritatingly circular discussions. But the irritatingness has been around for a long time, and I don't see it as any worse now than 6 months ago (although possibly not much better). And as askye points out, we have a thing now, a plan, even if it's a flawed plan, and I really don't want to start all over again on the plan.

Let's not go chucking out baby with bathwater, not yet, not now. Especially not because of the events of one week. The people who are exhausted with voting, did they feel that way when we ratified msbelle's disciplinary procedure? I suspect not. It's just this week, let it pass, and see how we feel next week.

Discussion is open for four days. No one, absolutely no one has to discuss for all four days. It's open for that long so a good number of people have the opportunity to have a voice.

If you could find the universal half hour, Sean, that would be great, and we can rest comfortably knowing everyone would be able to say "Well, did you think of it this way?" and then it would be done. Otherwise, my reflex would be to suggest that anyone who thinks one day is a good time, to spend no more than one day on it. Any one day in the four allotted. And then just wait until the vote opens.

Anti-proliferation voice here, but if you said that any thread 12 people wanted gets created, no discussion necessary -- we'd have every thread every suggested. That's not a check at all, and I think that "12" isn't the problem.

Wait. I thought the voting process was going to address PRIMARILY thread creation. Now we want thread creation to be a separate procedure?

No. WE do not want thread creation to be a separate procedure. I suggested it as AN EXAMPLE of something that we might want as a separate procedure. I learned my lesson last time. I will never, ever propose anything again.

FWIW, I do think the voting procedure is overkill for thread creation. I think it has great value for discussing how we run the board.

I know, askye. this is why I'm making the points that I'm trying to make.

This whole thing has turned into an unhappy, hurty thing for a lot of people - exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to do.

I want you and Allyson and Steph to not feel stupid when you come in here. It makes me unhappy when you and they feel dense.

I want Burrell and Cindy to not feel like the room is full of seriously crazy people when they stop by.

I want Bureaucracy to not make people cry any more. Voting was supposed to make people less unhappy with the process that we had. In some ways, it has made people much more unhappy than ever before.

I want that to stop, because I want my Buffistas to be happy, even the ones I disagree with completely and think should be locked away where they can't infect others with their dangerous thoughts.

And now maybe I should step off for a while. I wanted to make some points, but now I'm just talking myself in circles and making the waters just as muddy as everyone else.

ita, 12 was top-of-my-head. I'd be happy with 5, seriously. (Edit: or 50.) But I'm pro-proliferation in general -- as long as the bandwidth is okay, I have no problem with a juggling bologna thread, if that's what people want.

But I remember the process of starting threads through discussion. It sucked out loud -- people changed their minds and it was very hard to get a read on the Will of the Buffistas and the term "bullshit consensus" started getting thrown around. If, say, 42 people had to agree on a thread before one was started ... we're talking hundreds of not-that-interesting posts to wade through, and the possibility no decision would ever become clear.

I'd rather avoid that, even if the voting seems rather overkilly.