I am not intending to start a fight, and I will not pursue this past the original suggestion, but I have to wonder...
truehobbit wrote: 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.
If "doing things right" means "inclusion of the membership" and their wishes in all matters, then I wonder what we should do if it is the wish of the membership not to have to address, individually, each "harmless and trifling" question that may arise, particularly once it has reached the point of being "bothersome". Would there be some way to address this wish?
/end suggestion
This thread reminded me of another exchange some months ago:
In June, I wrote (re: the vote on whether to rename "admins" to "Rangers"):
[emphasis added]
Quote: Can you imagine what it would be like if your elected officials [in real life] requested you to vote on every name change, stating that such a protocol was the price of living in a democracy? Me personally, I would run screaming for the nearest dictatorship! We select democratically elected officials - both in real life and on this board - and we expect them to act in good faith to make minor, day to day decisions. If they do not, we have procedures in place to remove them. We expect them to consult us on the big picture issues, but not to trouble us over every decision that could have more than one outcome, no matter how minor.
At that time,
Voronwe wrote: This vote was, I think, fairly unique...I agree that every little thing should not be put to a vote.
Prim wrote: Indeed we can't vote over every little thing. In the committee we have struggled with this, balancing the commitment to openness and member input against the need for us to, finally, just trust the people in the jobs to have good sense and judgment.
I was gratified and reassured to see what each of these three people posted in this thread, in light of our differences on the necessity of the "Ranger" vote.
Jn wrote: I agree with you that minor things like that should not require voting under normal circumstances.
OK, that's it. I promise.