I was surprised that Elena didn't do them that way, because they seemed to go *so* much faster and so much more smoothly -- the current method seems extremely drawn out

I'd guess the death-matchers are going for ongoing fun rather than maximum efficiency.

Your fun probably varies, Trudy. Blame my Virgoness.

Well, if it's not fun don't do them.

I'm not saying it's not fun the way Elena's doing it, because it is. I was stating a preference. I apologize that it runs counter to yours.

I wonder how much that's influencing your opinions on this.

How my position on proliferation is influencing my position on proliferation?

Heavily, of course.

I don't see how one could separate them -- my reasons for proliferation are all hosting based. And that's what I'm talking about.

In an infinite world, have infinite threads.

But if Previously is gone,and Angel becomes much lower-volume, then it's not proliferation, it's replacement. I don't quite understand why that poses as large of a problem.

Again, we're talking about a step we may or may not vote on in three months. If a look at the code shows that we cannot add any new threads no matter what, that will be one thing. But it doesn't sound like we know that right now.

my reasons for proliferation are all hosting based.

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, then. In the past, I got the strong impression that in addition to the hosting concerns, you also liked having as few threads as possible because it fit well with your reading/thinking/posting style. (As it does with that of many people here, if not with mine.) If that's not the case, I apologize.

My reading and thinking styles are irrelevant to the things that are best for b.org.

And me expressing my opinion was in no way meant to circumvent a voting process -- just like yours.

My reading and thinking styles are irrelevant to the things that are best for b.org.

Well, yes and no. Yes, in that of course your ultimate decisions are going to be based on what is best for the board.

But if your personal preferences are anti-proliferation, then all of your reasons are *not* hosting based, which is what you said. Your reasons as a Stompy may be, and that may be what you intended to convey, but your reasons as a poster are not.

And I didn't think you were trying to circumvent a vote at all, especially since I'm not even proposing one now. Sorry if it sounded as though I did.

ita, given that there's a group of people who have volunteered to help with the code, I think a top priority ought to be for us to figure out a way that they can do that, rather than you having to feel bad about not having time.

I am thinking of putting Google Ads on the wiki. I will only do it if it is clear that proceeds go elsewhere. It seem like the Buffista Fund For Impulsive Gestures might be a worthy cause. (In recognition for the b.org sweat-and-tears that have gone into it) How would that work? Does the community want it?