board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Wed 21 Feb , 2018 3:39 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov , 2005 10:44 pm 
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Posts: 5107
Location: In Situ
Ballot, if needed, will go here.
_____________________________________

Friends,

We need two quickie Charter Amendments to correct something we forgot about when amending the ToE.

(1) The Amendment to Article 6 calls for the deletion after ten days of the Announcement Threads in the ToE that a new member has requested entry.

Currently Article 8 on thread deletions calls for obsolete announcements to be moved to the History Forum.

We need to amend Article 8 to be consistent with Article 6.

Cerin proposes the following wording be added to Article 8: Policy on Thread Deletions; ¶1 Routine Exceptions

Petitioner announcement threads in the Thinking of England forum are deleted permanently three days after their expiry, in accordance with Article 6 ¶4.

(2) Article 5, ¶1 about the Bike Racks says that Bike Rack threads can be deleted at the request of the posters. That provision is also not included in Article 8 and needs to be added.

Furthermore, dispute threads are given expiry dates and held in Deleted Thread Storage for awhile after the posters request deletion because we want to make sure they are available if there ends up being a Hearing or if the poster wants to appeal a Hearing. This is unlikely to be an issue very often with Bike Rack threads, but it might be, so I'd like to include for BR threads the expiry date ratified for Hearing threads, that is 10 days + one month. The text would read:

Bike Racks threads may be deleted at the request of the posters. They will remain in Deleted thread storage for 10 days plus one month from the date of the last post and then be deleted permanently.

________ THIS POST HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY EDITED AS WE TRY TO DECIDE WHAT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE DONE

I goofed when first reading Articles 8 and 6 and thought we would need a discussion about whether the threads should be deleted - but Article 6 already calls for deletion. See discussion in first few posts of this thread.

We're thinking it would be nice if we could update Article 8 without forming a committee, voting in committee, putting a ballot before the membership, discussing for ten day and then voting for ten days.

We should have caught this and put through a consistency amendment for Article 8 when we ratified the amendment to Article 6.

So, how much time do you think we should waste paying for these oversights? Would anyone object to us adding the necessary paragrap(s) to Article 8?

I'll leave this thread up for 14 days (as of Nov. 9) and if anyone objects we will go through the committee and ratification procedure. If no one objects I'll update Article 8.


Jn

ETA: a final apology .... when I first posted this I mistakenly referred to Article 8 as Article 12, and other posters followed by referring to it as Article 12. All of us are talking about Article 8: Policy on Thread Deletions

_________________
"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Last edited by Jnyusa on Sat 19 Nov , 2005 12:47 am, edited 12 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 11:09 am 
WYSIWYG

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 3228
Location: wherever
I think deletion is ok when there were no responses about the request. But what if there were objections to that member? Should the thread be treated the same then?

Quote:
I'll ask Eru to declare this an emergency vote for three reasons, even though the issue is not exactly burning holes in the board:

1. If we use the regular voting cycle, we won't have ratification until Dec. 20, and any number of people might have requested entry to the ToE by that time.

I think if the possibility of having their thread standing until Dec 20 worries the people in question, they might postpone their request.
Or as another possibility, why don't you just leave the threads in ToE until the matter is ratified, that way they'd be safe from google-bots.

You only just started, so it would be only Holby who drops out - if it's that easy a business, why do we need both Rangers to be up on the issue for it?

I don't know what exactly would happen in case of an emergency vote, but I don't really see why this should be one.

_________________
From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 3:38 pm 
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Posts: 7291
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
I think it should be allowed to go through fast because it is an overlooked detail, unimportant in itself, and there is no reason it needs the same long consideration as a full charter amendment. Why not dispose of minor business quickly, if no one's rights are at stake and there is no controversy?

I don't see any possible harm in being flexible in such a case.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 4:57 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
In the interim obsolete intro threads could simply be locked and allowed to sink in ToE.

Sigh. And now that I think about it, I wonder if deleting threads where objections are actually raised is really what we want to do, given that people can reapply, and those same issues raised again.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 4:58 pm 
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Posts: 5107
Location: In Situ
Hobby, objections are not made in the thread.

edit - oK wit a minute. Maybe I don't undestand what's happening. Let me read the amendment again.

What happens if there are objections is that a poll is added to the thread. So ... it starts to look more like the Invite process and not something we want to treat as if it were an advertisement.

Emergency vote just means that we don't have to wait until Dec 1 to do the vote. We can open the discussion period whenever a committee approves a wording for the members.

Jn
__________

Ok, a more careful reading answered two questions.

1. Posters do not post in the thread but a Ranger summarizes the objections. This presumably would be done using the administrator account. People vote in the thread. The results of the vote are summarized in the thread (by admins) and then conveyed to the petitioner.

2. THE ToE ARTICLE CALLS FOR THE THREAD TO THEN BE DELETED.

Sorry, stupid me. So we don't have to discuss this at all. We just have to approve a corresponding addition to Article 8.

I'm wondering if we even need a member ratification for this? Since the members already ratified deletion ....

Shoot. that's why there are Loremasters on Amendment committees. We should have caught this while drafting the first amendment. And I'm as guilty as everyone else because I really just skimmed it when it went up for ratification, looking for the one or two key points that I wanted to see there.

Well, last time we did a consistency check for Articles already ratified, we did let the members ratify those changes as well. I wish we could keep this simple.

jn

_________________
"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Last edited by Jnyusa on Sat 12 Nov , 2005 4:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 5:05 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Can we just save the poll results somewhere and delete the rest of the thread, which as noted, doesn't have actual content beyond the announcment?

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 5:10 pm 
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Posts: 5107
Location: In Situ
Ax,

Sorry I was reading while you were posting. No, Article 6 calls for the thread to be deleted.

We just have to make Article 8 consistent with that.

Jn

[my edit is in above post]

_________________
"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Last edited by Jnyusa on Sat 12 Nov , 2005 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 5:15 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Hmm. I wonder if this isn't really an administrative change rather than a committee change, as it is only a clarification and not a change in function. It's clear part of the intent of the amendment was to create a class of deletable threads. I think we can just add that item to the list in Article 12 without going through the folderol of a committee and a vote.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 5:18 pm 
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Posts: 5107
Location: In Situ
How I would love to do it that way.

Everyone can imagine how sick I am of running votes if they're sick of voting.

Well, let me leave the thread up here for ten days. I'll edit the first post to reflect that this is a consistency change and tell people to register their objections if they have any.

Maybe we could just get the Loremasters to stop in and give a nod of approval ... or a salmon of correction ... or something.

Jn

_________________
"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 5:30 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
I would be happy with a few LMs nodding sagely. :D

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 6:52 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
I've just become aware of this. I'm sorry I did not notice the inconsistency with Article 12. (Article 6 calls for deletion of the threads after three days, not after 10 days.)

Is the current suggestion that this statement be added to Article 12?:

"Announcements that a new member has requested entry to the Thinking of England forum are deleted permanently when they expire."

Here is a different suggested wording for that first phrase, and I'm trying to remember if we've referenced the related article when we've had other cross-referenced amendments?:

Petitioner announcement threads in the Thinking of England forum are deleted permanently after three days, in accordance with Article 6 ¶4.


As far as what course should be taken, the amendment was presented with what was clearly intended to be an inclusive addendum of companion amendments; any necessary companion amendments were accepted defacto with the ratification of the main amendment.

The only reason the Article 12 amendment wasn't included was because of an oversight on my part; obviously if I had noticed the inconsistency, the Article 12 amendment would have been included and passed with the main amendment. No one objected to the provision to delete the petitioner threads in committee or in either member discussion, so there is no need to present the idea as a separate amendment for discussion and ratification, IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 7:01 pm 
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Posts: 5107
Location: In Situ
Thanks, Cerin. It was my oversight, too. I'm supposed to read these things and I didn't do it carefully enough.

after three days,

I believe it has to be three days after expiry, right? Because the thread stands for ten days.

Jn

_________________
"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 7:08 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Quote:
I believe it has to be three days after expiry, right? Because the thread stands for ten days.

Oh, yes, of course. They are deleted permanently three days after the end of the consideration period. So 'when they expire' does say all of that more succinctly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 8:12 pm 
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Posts: 5107
Location: In Situ
Cerin, your wording is better so I replaced it in the first post with that one clarification.

Jn

_________________
"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 8:38 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
I don't see a big problem requiring a vote. Its clear that the membership intended that the threads be deleted based on the ratification of the amendment to Article 6. That provides a de facto exception to the general rule against deleting threads in Article 12, even if the exception isn't spelled out in Article 12. Any contradiction between the two is illusory, since it is clear that the intent of the membership is to allow the deletion of these particular threads. I really don't think that needs to be confirmed with a further vote, and I think the potential harm of going through with a largely unnecessary vote -- and thereby further alienating those members who feel the community has become too rule-bound -- outweighs the small advantage of eliminating even the hint of confusion as to what is appropriate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 9:08 pm 
WYSIWYG

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 3228
Location: wherever
Ah alright - well, if there's a provision to delete polls completely, I think it's logical that the threads without polls are deleted, too. :)

I don't remember what we did with the other inconsistencies we found - I think we put them up for a ratification vote, though, didn't we?

Of course some people will complain - but it's a change to the text of the charter, isn't it? I thought that would have to be approved in any case.
No one needs to vote who doesn't want to!
I think the only problem might be the quorum, if we need one.

Maybe we could compromise by saying: we leave the suggestion up, and if no one has objected to the change in two weeks or so it's accepted?

Quote:
I think the potential harm of going through with a largely unnecessary vote -- and thereby further alienating those members who feel the community has become too rule-bound -- outweighs the small advantage of eliminating even the hint of confusion as to what is appropriate.

I think changes to the charter text are everybody's business, and it should be made clear that on this board no changes are ever made without a general consensus!

If someone doesn't like that, that's their problem. Like I said, we might find a compromise solution, but I really wouldn't like any neglect of our ideals of inclusion of the membership in all matters concerning the board to even begin, you know - no matter how harmless and trifling the actual fact. :)
I know it's bothersome - I find it bothersome, too! But I wouldn't want to slacken in doing things right just because I can't be bothered. :)

We have this thread here now - the matter is made public - let's at least leave it here for a decent time, so that everybody can take notice if they want!

_________________
From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Last edited by truehobbit on Wed 09 Nov , 2005 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 9:12 pm 
Unlabeled

Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Posts: 1646
Location: San Francisco
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
I really don't think that needs to be confirmed with a further vote, and I think the potential harm of going through with a largely unnecessary vote -- and thereby further alienating those members who feel the community has become too rule-bound -- outweighs the small advantage of eliminating even the hint of confusion as to what is appropriate.


There is no way that I could possibly agree with this more strongly than I do now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 9:16 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
I do agree with TH that this particular thread stay up for a bit, just so no one gets a surprise. Perhaps we could sticky it for a week? Or rather, globally sticky it?

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Last edited by Axordil on Wed 09 Nov , 2005 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 9:16 pm 
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Posts: 8748
Location: UK
Ditto to what Voronwe and tp have said.

_________________
Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 9:22 pm 
through the looking glass

Joined: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 2241
Quote:
Any contradiction between the two is illusory, since it is clear that the intent of the membership is to allow the deletion of these particular threads. I really don't think that needs to be confirmed with a further vote, and I think the potential harm of going through with a largely unnecessary vote -- and thereby further alienating those members who feel the community has become too rule-bound -- outweighs the small advantage of eliminating even the hint of confusion as to what is appropriate.


In full agreement with Voronwe here.

I say this strictly for myself but my eyes have a tendancy to glaze, and my brain has a tendancy to freeze, at the prospect of YET ANOTHER proceedural vote.

Tidy is one thing. The pursuit of the fastidious into infinity is another thing entirely.

:D

I say let it be.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group