JIm, I think that proposal is overbroad; I like the principle but not that instantiation. I think we could hash it out in a little more detail -- here, not in Spoilers -- so that everyone's on the same page, before we get all official-proposally.
Willow ,'Potential'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
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
Isn't the policy propose, second, *then* hash out specifics in Lightbulb? I seconded it with that understanding.
Isn't the policy propose, second, *then* hash out specifics in Lightbulb? I seconded it with that understanding.
The proposer is in charge of the proposal wording.
If you want to propose something, get seconds, and run with the proposal as originally worded, great. If you want to propose, get seconds, and revise, that works too. If you want to go for bullshit consensus on the original proposal before officially asking for seconds, you can do that too.
Well, but I like to do more of the general hashing out in advance, because that makes the initial proposal not very different from the one that goes to vote -- most of its kinks have been worked out already.
Because, like I said, I can already see kinks in the text of what Jim is proposing.
What's "Fow"?
Fox. Typo. And I'm happy to accept any changes - that was just a quickie to start conversation.
Right, Amy. But Jim posted the proposal asking for seconds, didn't he? I agree it should be (and probably will be) modified before the vote, but we have four days until then. Getting seconds would be a good way to start discussion, rather than waiting until we get the *perfect* proposal. On the other hand, I would understand it if the feelign was that Jim's is a starting point, and an official bullshit-consensus proposal will be Plei's.
Oh, and "major", I'd say, means regulars not guest stars or recurrings.
As candyb put it in spoilers:
I would support a proposal to changes to the MAIN CAST ONLY, not recurring or guest.
This sounds like the way to go, although I'd probably change it to "well-publicized changes". I know "well-publicized" opens its own can of worms (i.e. define "well-publicized"). Doyles death, for instance, was not what I'd call well-publicized in advance. Buffy returning season 6, or SMG not doing another season, I would call well-publicized.
If Jim's proposal was official, I'll third.
Teppy - my understanding is you followed the steps, but I wish more folks would chime in.