I'd like to suggest e-mailing Jim before we write him off for lost.

Since it's been set up that the wording of the proposal is up to the proposer (to protect us from having to consense), I think it's a less big deal to have a bit of a delay.

Why on earth do we vote in policies if, the moment they become inconvenient, we start lobbying to chuck them?

OK ita - on Jim I'm reassured. It didn't occur to me, but make perfect sense that he might not realize that he needs to drop by occasionally to decide whether he wants to make wording changes.

And delaying the vote until he shows up again does sound like the best solution. Insisting on sticking rigidly to voting schedule would be excessively legalistic.

I agree we should email Jim and give him some extra time, and that we don't have to vote right away.

But I'm thinking about the larger situation, of what to do when someone proposes something, but isn't around when it's time for a vote. It seems like the sort of thing that may happen often enough that we should have an option besides waiting around indefinitely.

But I'm thinking about the larger situation, of what to do when someone proposes something, but isn't around when it's time for a vote. It seems like the sort of thing that may happen often enough that we should have an option besides waiting around indefinitely.

The default option, it would seem to me, is that the proposal goes forward for vote as originally worded. The discussion in Lightbulb usually creates a modified version of the original proposal which accomodates more people (and enhances it's chances of being voted in). But that is up to the discretion of the proposer, and if Jim doesn't change it then the vote would go forward with the original wording.

The default option, it would seem to me, is that the proposal goes forward for vote as originally worded.

Yes, this. It does seem sporting to drop Jim an email, but it's not like proposals have to be modified before we vote.

That's a scary notion.

Here's a proposition. If we do end up going to a vote on the proposal as originally worded, I'll extend a plea to all the spoiled folk to vote against it, on the understanding that I'll personally repropose with the revised wording as found in (Kristen's?) Press post (with a couple of revisions that have been put out since then - I'm thinking of Cindy's).

As nightmarish as this discussion has gotten at times, there are some points on which we've achieved some sort of accord, and I hate to think of losing all that.

Here's a proposition. If we do end up going to a vote on the proposal as originally worded, I'll extend a plea to all the spoiled folk to vote against it, on the understanding that I'll personally repropose with the revised wording as found in (Kristen's?) Press post (with a couple of revisions that have been put out since then - I'm thinking of Cindy's).

Can you repropose, though? I thought there was a limit on reproposing things.

Brenda, what changes does it need? I know the summer thing; I'm just blanking on what else.

The suggestion has been made for a virgin thread as well, but I'd rather save that for another vote because we really haven't discussed it.

I thought there was a limit on reproposing things.

I thought so, too. Three months, maybe?

Thought of that as soon as I posted. However, it seems to me that if we can set aside grandfathering in the interest of community needs, we can do the same with the moratorium.

At any rate, I'm not delighted with that idea anyway - because, say we voted on the proposal as currently worded, and say it goes down. Among the folk who've been arguing in this thread, it might be reasonable to make some assumptions about why they would vote against - wouldn't be 100 percent of course, but still. For people who haven't yet chimed in, how would we know?

But I hate, hate, hate the thought that we end up back where we started after finally managing to agree on some things.