Tosh: I'm sorry that I did not see your answer to my question. You answered too fast!
...an informal Bike Racks that was used at the judgement of the members (without the board interfering) and another formal forum under the control of the Rangers ...
I think there is a misunderstanding here about how the board actually functions. First of all, the members are the board, so it doesn't make sense to talk about the members doing something without the board interfering. It is not 'the board' that interferes as some independent entity but rather different members disagree with one another as to how things should be done. Ideally we would do that through rational discussion of our options.
ALL the forums are under the formal control of the Rangers. There are no exceptions to this. I can move any thread anywhere at any time if I feel it interferes with the coherence of a the forum. Even in the ToE I can do this. Any Ranger can.
If we state explicitly that the Bike Racks rules are not to be too strict by adding language to that effect, OR if we simply fail to ratify any increased strictness in the current rules, the situation in the Bike Racks will be exactly the same. It will still be under the formal control of the Rangers. You do not eliminate Ranger control by specifying that lighthearted threads can be allowed. If there are ten Turf-like threads in the Bike Racks, I can assure you that Rangers will start moving them to preserve the coherence of the forum, even under more relaxed constraints.
The purpose of the Bike Racks is to resolve disputes. It ceases to be coherent if it is used
consistently for some other purpose. I am confident that 'reasonable use' will be the criterion employed by the Rangers no matter how we word the Charter.
If we make the rule concerning the Bike Racks
very strict, then Rangers will be obligated to move non-conforming threads, and that would be the only difference in their 'control.'
How does anyone know what would be given an unambiguous majority?
Certain voting forms produce certain results. Only yes/no votes are able to yield a supermajority of 67%. No other voting form will guarantee this.
I do not think it is to our advantage right now to offer a ballot with strong potential to produce a 51-49% split.
Jn