Blocked proposals

I don't think a block should stop a proposal in its tracks. I stated that it should invite further discussion, however and people might try to persuade the person to change a block to another vote, just like you did with Jason.

I certainly think anyone who uses a block should be prepared to say why. I think it is an invitation for the blocker to be persuaded as to why the vote should proceed.

I don't think it must prohibit a vote from moving forward, but at the same time it shouldn't be blatantly ignored. Heck there are a lot of people who aren't voting and their votes are being ignored. What about that? So does a block really make much of a difference? If people are going to ignore a block without discussing it, that says a lot to the process here. If they at least discuss it, then I think that that is the purpose of a block to allow for more discussion. I think that that is a good thing.

Is the red hand really so scary?

If we count a block vote per the expanded text "I have strong objections and am not OK with it going forward" that seems to be more of a strong disagree than an outright veto, then I am fine with that. It encourages discussion (why are they waving that red flag?) but does not stop the process dead.

5 yes + 3 no + 1 block is still approved.

@Dave: In spirit I agree, but I think just like the Supreme Court Justice, a minority voice can be registered in a block vote, and the way that others respond to a block vote can say a lot in the record when people go back into the archive. I think that is helpful for the memory of the community.

What you say about "5 yes + 3 no + 1 block is still approved," may be so, but when people (in the future) examine the process of deliberation in the discussion (as a historical record) and see that no one addressed a block (i.e. attempted to address the concerns that the blocker raised), or the blocker did not articulate why the block was foisted (i.e. was acting trollish and being obstructive for no good reason), then it's clearly seen in the record that the discussion was being bypassed (on either side) and that does say something about the "quality" of the approval and/or the "quality" of the block. If people really care about the quality of the decision as it is recorded for posterity, then it means we continue to deliberate or move on as the case may be. Does that seem fair?

So it's kind of just to get more attention to your vote by showing it red. Majority still wins.

Btw please make proposals concrete. They should clearly say what changes or happens if one votes on it. Questions are not good proposals :)

I agree with Jason. I think proposals should be detailed enough so that they don't just give a suggestion of what to do, but an explanation of why to do it, and an idea of how to do it.

@Jason & Sean: Well, let's think about it? I mean sometimes a proposal may just focus as a finger to the wind. Sometimes a person can identify what's at issue, but it would be impossible to know what the solution would be. For example, since we seem to be OK about allowing proposals to be blocked, then we can discuss more formally what is an amenable convention for handling blocks, so that no one gets hurt! :)

(Blocks can be made good humor. They could be floating a red balloon. :) They don't have to be obnoxious. )

So it seems to follow that someone might create a new proposal about what might be a non-contentious way to deal with a block (on both sides)? I did notice that it is possible to create more than one proposal per discussion.

If you see an issue but no solution start a discussion, no proposal.

@Flaburgen: Is there a reason you think you would ever need a veto? I mean would you want to completely stop something if so many people share consensus? I think it would only create bad feeling if people ever use a block then. And it would invite trollish behavior, not discussion.

Why does a block have to be a nuclear launch button?

If we're going to have a 'block' for 'I'm really against this', shouldn't we have an equivalent on the positive side? So either yes/abstain/no or force/yes/abstain/no/block. Otherwise it's unbalanced.

I'd say remove the 'block' feature and just have yes/abstain/no - people can express the strength of their feelings in comments. If a 'block' carries more weight than an ordinary no vote, it's in effect giving some people more than one vote. If you have this facility on one side of the vote, you need it on the other, positive side.