Thanks for your explanations and thoughts, Prim and Voronwe. (Also, you are both superfast responders
) I think the logic of what you both have said makes sense.
I think you've outlined the conflict well, Prim. Where can we draw the line between superfluous and material votes, in consulting the membership? Probably a question with which democracies have long struggled.
I definitely agree with you, Voronwe, that whatever name that you all choose for the History forum does not need a member vote. It's good to know that (most) naming decisions and similar votes will be made as a matter of course - that pretty much answers my concern.
I gather that the name Ranger (or other replacement for Admin) is of great importance to you. To refer to my earlier examples, perhaps this is closer to renaming SF than the councilpeople/representative example.
If so, that's fine in my book, as long as these votes do not occur continually; you seem to say that they will not.
In passing, I'd like to note that I always feel hesitant to post comments like the one that I did above; I feel that because I have not invested the time in this process that the two of you and others have, I shouldn't disagree with whatever you decide. But then, I remind myself that a democracy exists not just for its leaders, but its citizenry as well, and would have little point if the citizenry felt unable to express disagreement with leaders...
- TP