Votes regarding ongoing situations

[His Noodly Appendage]

Here's a potential problem:

Suppose some ongoing situation exists - be it a problem poster for whom a suspension has been mooted, the need for a new subforum to handle topics, or other reactive response that's not to a single event, for which consensus is required.

Some farsighted staff member flags it early, proposes action and posts a poll. A majority of staff don't see the issue as pressing, and so vote 'no'.

Now, as the pressure for change slowly increases, what happens?

Do we leave the poll open and let people change their votes? This seems messy, and I predict a snowball effect with nobody changing back 'yes' votes that they no longer really support.

Do we kill it and start a new one? If so, how often? Not that I'm suggesting formal time-limits for re-tabling - it's not like anyone here is likely to spam proposals ad nauseam unti people agree just to shut them up - but some kind of guideline might be a good idea.

Or does there exist a much better way of doing things that avoids both problems?

[Quizalufagus]

Well, it seems to me that all votes should be conducted with a specific time limit in mind (say 48 hours). If a previously resolved issue needs to be opened for discussion again, then I think a new vote (again with a time limit) would be the most appropriate way to do this. Just because an issue was resolved by a vote doesn't mean that it can't be reconsidered.

[RBH]

My view is that a poll ought not be the first thing to post, and in fact should come (if at all) late in the discussion process. Let people noodle around an idea for a while, teasing out what the strengths and potential problems are, and what other alternatives there might be. A premature poll locks into a limited set of alternatives that are uninformed by discussion. Many of the polls that have been posted in Town Hall have been slapped up without the benefit of some discussion and as a consequence missed alternatives, had fuzzy or confusing language, and came to nothing.

After all, if it's a pressing problem that requires fast action, the administrators are empowered to do that subject to review.

[Jet Black]

I am inclined to agree with RBH here. of the votes that we have had in the staff forum, it seems that the ones that pop up following a discussion on that issue are far more successful and less likely to have people changing their minds.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Well, there is a good technical reason why we don't set up polls so that people can change their vote - the software doesn't allow it!

To be honest, I agree with RBH in that polls should only be taken at the end of the discussion process rather than set up at the start.

We're looking for what people think as a result of the discussion, rather than what their pre-supposed opinions were before it started.

In fact, I think that in many cases there is no need for a poll anyway. If we have all agreed in the discussion without any dissenting opinions being expressed then the poll is a waste of time, and we should just get on and do whatever it was that we all agreed to do.

Polls are useful when opinion is split, since they accurately show the size and nature of the split. They are rather pointless when we all agree on something.

[Jet Black]

well often people might not participate in a discussion but hold an opinion one way or another. a poll is a simple opportunity for them to get involved.

[Bright Life]

If no one sees a problem at first, then it should be left until the problem resurfaces. If the problem reoccurs, so does the discussion. I don't think any time limit is necessary.

What's the issue?

[ravenscape]

If an already decided problem rears its ugly head again, or if an issue heats back up, then it's time to look at it anew. Many times, the decision is "wait and see". So, if we wait and see trouble, then either revive the old thread for discussion purposes, or start a new one. But a poll should start fresh if that's the direction we decide to go after some discussion.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Ya. I guess I was mainly talking about times when it's hard to draw a line between one head-rearing and another, when they're all part of one mish-mash. I do agree that that's the best approach in general.