CCC Members Only: Please answer these questions.

[Lisa0315]

There are several members who have left and others who are discussing it. I think part of the problem is that people get frustrated when there is no clear direction or leadership. As nice as it sounded when Erwin first gave us the site, it has been difficult and not as rewarding as we first assumed.

Here in CCC, some are losing that initial excitement, unity, and happiness with our new Congregational area.

We have had polls, and wikis, and some folks have gotten mad.

So, I am going to step up here. Do not beat me up for it. I am not doing it as some kind of power tyrant wanting to take control. I am doing it because I see a need.

Here are the things that we need to decide.


It appears that membership is now closed. Our wiki states that a new member must have sponsorship by five current members and at least 50 posts. Do you agree with this? Yes or No.
If the answer to #1 is No, what do you think would work better? Please do not answer open membership because that is final at this point with a 70%+ margin.
Mods are voted in by a margin of 70% consensus. Some of our other polls have had less margins than this with less than 1/3 of membership voting. Should we add a definitive poll option to our wiki? This means that a poll would not be binding unless 70%+ margin existed and if at least 2/3 of the membership voted.
Another option has been that we would elect a board of five rule makers who would serve for a period of 3 months. At that point, new rule makers would be elected and serve for the next quarter. This would eliminate the need for polls and wikis. No rule maker could serve two consecutive quarters. Would you like this option rather than using polls and wikis?Let's just talk about these things and please, please, please, no wild accusations, no negativity, and please remember that we are brothers and sisters here.

Lisa

[Tonks]

1) No.

2) I don't have another solution...I'll have to look at how some of the other forums have decided to do things before saying much more.

3) Really don't care on way or another. I think that outside of mod voting polls should not be used in wikis as it sort of defeats the purpose of wikifying consensus. It is a nice visual option but I'm not sure it really means that much in the long run unless it is well constructed.

4) No.

All of these questions, I think, are symptomatic of some of the malaise that folks find in certain corners of CF these days. Every time a new forum opens there is a rush to immediately create some pretty silly rules, decide to stays and who goes, and a (misguided, I think) rush to immediately elect as many staff as possible.

In some respects I think that it is sort of putting the cart before the horse. Much like when CF reopened on 777 there was more time spent in wikis which discussed how to remove staff than discussion on how to elect them in the first place.

CCC is in a somewhat difficult situation as it really isn't a Congregation, per se. In those instances it is easier to sort things out. I do think, however, that the rapid production of rules for this and that has not allowed a certain degree of organic development. Likewise, for a while the main forum was cluttered up with threads not actually related to conservative christianity but what can best be described as administrative details.

I just think that a slight pause is necessary.

[Albion]

So, I am going to step up here. Do not beat me up for it. I am not doing it as some kind of power tyrant wanting to take control. I am doing it because I see a need.

Not a problem with me. I know you better than that and we need the Mods to step up.


Here are the things that we need to decide.Here are the things that we need to decide.

It appears that membership is now closed. Our wiki states that a new member must have sponsorship by five current members and at least 50 posts. Do you agree with this? Yes or No.
If the answer to #1 is No, what do you think would work better? Please do not answer open membership because that is final at this point with a 70%+ margin.
Mods are voted in by a margin of 70% consensus. Some of our other polls have had less margins than this with less than 1/3 of membership voting. Should we add a definitive poll option to our wiki? This means that a poll would not be binding unless 70%+ margin existed and if at least 2/3 of the membership voted.
Another option has been that we would elect a board of five rule makers who would serve for a period of 3 months. At that point, new rule makers would be elected and serve for the next quarter. This would eliminate the need for polls and wikis. No rule maker could serve two consecutive quarters. Would you like this option rather than using polls and wikis?It appears that membership is now closed. It closed before a large number of us were added to the rolls.
1. cont'd Our wiki states that a new member must have sponsorship by five current members and at least 50 posts. Do you agree with this? Yes or No. No.

2. If the answer to #1 is No, what do you think would work better? Please do not answer open membership because that is final at this point with a 70%+ That number --5 -- was chosen when we had far fewer members than we do now. Logically, and to keep that frame of reference, we should require more now. Since membership will not remain constant under any circumstances, perhaps an actual percentage would be better. 15-20% would be more than generous.

3. Mods are voted in by a margin of 70% consensus. Some of our other polls have had less margins than this with less than 1/3 of membership voting. Should we add a definitive poll option to our wiki? This means that a poll would not be binding unless 70%+ margin existed and if at least 2/3 of the membership voted. Not a bad idea.

4. Another option has been that we would elect a board of five rule makers who would serve for a period of 3 months. At that point, new rule makers would be elected and serve for the next quarter. This would eliminate the need for polls and wikis. No rule maker could serve two consecutive quarters. Would you like this option rather than using polls and wikis?
No. The idea there is that rules are always in flux. While some amendment procedure is necessary because of changed circumstances, such as 5 nominations when the membership is twice the number it was when that seemed a reasonable percentage, to be constantly re-assessing and looking to fiddle with the rules (causing the feeling that the rules are not finalized...ever), isn't good policy.

[nyj]

1. It appears that membership is now closed. Our wiki states that a new member must have sponsorship by five current members and at least 50 posts. Do you agree with this? Yes or No.

No. The 50 posts is completely unmanageable. Who is going to enforce it? What if someone has signed up purposefully to post here? Seems capricious that we force them outside our forum based on no having a couple days worth of posts.

2. If the answer to #1 is No, what do you think would work better? Please do not answer open membership because that is final at this point with a 70%+ margin.Well, we could always revote, there is nothing that says we cannot. I think the 5 members is fine, as is, but I think we should just open it up and let people come in as long as they're not members of the Liberal Forum. THAT criteria should be restrictive enough.
3. Mods are voted in by a margin of 70% consensus. Some of our other polls have had less margins than this with less than 1/3 of membership voting. Should we add a definitive poll option to our wiki? This means that a poll would not be binding unless 70%+ margin existed and if at least 2/3 of the membership voted.I'd be fine with this. If it's going to be in our rules, and the forum is going to have to live with it (like we'll have to live with our moderators), it seems that 70% across the board in voting would be fair.

Though, getting 2/3 of the membership to vote may be a bit hard to do. You ever try to reach quorum in meetings ... it can be a pain sometimes.

I'd say that we need 20 votes MINIMUM, and if people don't vote ... they have no one to blame but themselves. Leaving polls open for a period of time would help, as would stating that we won't vote around major holiday seasons.
4. Another option has been that we would elect a board of five rule makers who would serve for a period of 3 months. At that point, new rule makers would be elected and serve for the next quarter. This would eliminate the need for polls and wikis. No rule maker could serve two consecutive quarters. Would you like this option rather than using polls and wikis?
No. Besides, once we have our rules established ... how much of a rotating rule maker board would we need?

This seems horribly complex ... and the rules should remain simple. The minute they become cumbersome and complex, they cease to be useful. They become a burden for the forum.

The minute I get a post along the lines of: NYJ, based on rule 3, paragraph 2, subsection 5 whch is correlated with Rule 7, paragraph 7.2b ... I'll go postal and push for the forum to be shut down.

It's a MB, not a country. Let's keep things short, sweet and enjoyable.

[MrJim]

I go along with nyj, seems pretty reasonable.

Gee people just decide on something, get it moving, and adjust on the way :doh:

(I think nyj would make an exceptional Big Daddy btw...)

[Jim47]

It appears that membership is now closed. Our wiki states that a new member must have sponsorship by five current members and at least 50 posts. Do you agree with this? Yes or No.



No rule will be perfect but I think is as good as any. If we are to keep the forum for conservative members then something has to be done to determine if they are conservative or not, but I'm open to suggestions.

[MrJim]

No rule will be perfect but I think is as good as any. If we are to keep the forum for conservative members then something has to be done to determine if they are conservative or not, but I'm open to suggestions.

Rack
Waterboard
Thumbscrews
PBS

...we have ways of making them talk...

[Miss Shelby]

I'd like to see things be a lot less complicated. The less complicated, the easier to enforce.

I am going to opt to not answer the questions as I believe doing so would lead to more unnecessary complicated discussion-- the result being nothing getting resolved.

[Lisa0315]

Well, the problem as I see is is that mods can only enforce site wide rules. The CCC rules are so open that they are not enforcable.

One known liberal voted in several of our polls. I have no idea how they stopped it.

One other person decided on a moment's whim to be conservative and we practically ran her out of town. No mods involved there.

I guess I am just trying to get some kind of clarity.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

It appears that membership is now closed. Our wiki states that a new member must have sponsorship by five current members and at least 50 posts. Do you agree with this? Yes or No.No

If the answer to #1 is No, what do you think would work better? Please do not answer open membership because that is final at this point with a 70%+ margin.A 5 member approval would be fine.

Mods are voted in by a margin of 70% consensus. Some of our other polls have had less margins than this with less than 1/3 of membership voting. Should we add a definitive poll option to our wiki? This means that a poll would not be binding unless 70%+ margin existed and if at least 2/3 of the membership voted.A minimum of 20 members with a 70% margin. No wiki.

Another option has been that we would elect a board of five rule makers who would serve for a period of 3 months. At that point, new rule makers would be elected and serve for the next quarter. This would eliminate the need for polls and wikis. No rule maker could serve two consecutive quarters. Would you like this option rather than using polls and wikis?Not a good idea. We need to keep the rules simple, easy to follow, and enforceable. The rules that we have listed in the wiki now are very close to completion. Remember, members that do not participate in the rule wiki will have to obey them and have no excuse.


Folks, we are frozen in place because we are trying to cover every eventuality. We have a good place to start. Lets finalize the rules with what we have and what is decided in this thread and move on. We can always add to the rules as new issues arise.

[soblessed53]

No
A 5 member approval would be fine.
A minimum of 20 members with a 70% margin. No wiki.
Not a good idea. We need to keep the rules simple, easy to follow, and enforceable. The rules that we have listed in the wiki now are very close to completion. Remember, members that do not participate in the rule wiki will have to obey them and have no excuse.


Folks, we are frozen in place because we are trying to cover every eventuality. We have a good place to start. Lets finalize the rules with what we have and what is decided in this thread and move on. We can always add to the rules as new issues arise.


I like these best,and I agree,get rid of this STUPID Wiki business!:clap: :clap: :clap:

Agree to some rules and stick to them!

[Simon_Templar]

I think that the idea of a minimum of 50 posts is good. It ensures that a person is an actual real user, and not an account specifically created to come here and cause trouble.

The 50 posts shouldn't have to be in other forums. If they want to post 50 times in this forum, great, all the better so we can get to know them.

If 50 is too high a number, it could be lowered some, but I think we need a minimum post rule in order to stop deliberate trolls from using sock accounts to grief the forum.

I, however, don't think a person should have to be sponsored by five members of the forum. I think that anyone who is willing to make a statement of agreement with the forum rules should be allowed to apply for membership, and then their membership should be voted on by the existing forum members with a simple majority necessary for them to become members.

[soblessed53]

That's what I LIKE about the being sponsored by 5 members,is exactly to avoid TROLLS and liberals here,I know of two hanging around right now that would not be able to get 5 Conservative Christians to sponsor them.

As for the 50 posts,does it say they have to be in other forums?

But I'm for just 5 member approval.

[nyj]

The CCC rules are so open that they are not enforcable. Eh? How so. Things have seem to be running smoothly here, in large part because our active moderators have been doing a great job IMO.

One known liberal voted in several of our polls. I have no idea how they stopped it.IIRC, they didn't count towards the elections. Why? Because our WIKI says they won't. As for other polls, none of them seem to have been binding at all ... so it's no harm, no foul at this point.

[Tonks]

IIRC, they didn't count towards the elections. Why? Because our WIKI says they won't. As for other polls, none of them seem to have been binding at all ... so it's no harm, no foul at this point.

Exactly...just remove the vote and recalculate. It doesn't invalidate a poll.

[HypnoToad]

It appears that membership is now closed. Our wiki states that a new member must have sponsorship by five current members and at least 50 posts. Do you agree with this? Yes or No.
If the answer to #1 is No, what do you think would work better? Please do not answer open membership because that is final at this point with a 70%+ margin.No. I agree with the minimum post count, but I would be fine with only 2 members endorsing them. If someone posts non-conservatively, their membership won't last long regardless of how many sponsors.


Mods are voted in by a margin of 70% consensus. Some of our other polls have had less margins than this with less than 1/3 of membership voting. Should we add a definitive poll option to our wiki? This means that a poll would not be binding unless 70%+ margin existed and if at least 2/3 of the membership voted.I say let mods be chosen by simple majority of whoever votes. The only regulation I would have is that the poll must be open for a long enough time, maybe about 2 weeks at least. If members don't vote, any outcome they don't like is their own fault.


Another option has been that we would elect a board of five rule makers who would serve for a period of 3 months. At that point, new rule makers would be elected and serve for the next quarter. This would eliminate the need for polls and wikis. No rule maker could serve two consecutive quarters. Would you like this option rather than using polls and wikis?No, stick with the current polls/wiki system. Otherwise you'll have rules constantly being applied, then removed, then re-applied, etc. Too chaotic.

[desmalia]

I think one of the problems was putting the cart before the horse. The CC rules & statement should have been solidified before any decisions about closing membership could even be considered. And if they're never going to be solidified, you can forget ever seeing this as a "safe, conservative" place, because there will be no stability. If people decide they don't like a rule, there will be yet another poll, and more problems. On and on it goes. There will never be a way to devise the rules so that everyone is happy. But lines still need to be drawn in order to move forward. This forum does need some leadership, but honestly I don't know how that can ever be set up with the current situation on CF.

[CyberPaladin]

If the answer to #1 is No, what do you think would work better? Please do not answer open membership because that is final at this point with a 70%+ margin.I was one of the ones orginaly advocating for 5 members before admitance which I wouldn't have a problem with as long as people remember to take this serously no sponsoring people your not sure of because your trying to be nice and so Christ like love.

2. Mods are voted in by a margin of 70% consensus. Some of our other polls have had less margins than this with less than 1/3 of membership voting. Should we add a definitive poll option to our wiki? This means that a poll would not be binding unless 70%+ margin existed and if at least 2/3 of the membership voted.

I like the idea of going with 70% but concurr with Jedi that leaving the poll open for 2 weeks should be sufficient. Because if we are going to go with 2/3 particapation requirement it's going to be impossible between people who leave and don't say anything and those who just don't post often.


Another option has been that we would elect a board of five rule makers who would serve for a period of 3 months. At that point, new rule makers would be elected and serve for the next quarter. This would eliminate the need for polls and wikis. No rule maker could serve two consecutive quarters. Would you like this option rather than using polls and wikis?
Let's just talk about these things and please, please, please, no wild accusations, no negativity, and please remember that we are brothers and sisters here.

Lisa
This idea will breed nothing but choas we need figure out what rules we want as group and having rotating panel make them isn't going to accomplish that.

[Albion]

No. I agree with the minimum post count, but I would be fine with only 2 members endorsing them.

You are entitled to that opinion, just as everyone else can have their own, BUT I assure you that out of a membership of 50 or so (whatever it may be exactly) there are at least two people who will always vote for ANYONE who asks. To have a ridiculously low number such as 2% of the total of us is tantamount to giving everyone who wants to post and create threads a free pass whether or not they even align with our vision or rules.

[HypnoToad]

You are entitled to that opinion, just as everyone else can have their own, BUT I assure you that out of a membership of 50 or so (whatever it may be exactly) there are at least two people who will always vote for ANYONE who asks. To have a ridiculously low number such as 2% of the total of us is tantamount to giving everyone who wants to post and create threads a free pass whether or not they even align with our vision or rules.
And as I already said, if they post against the rules, their posts can be removed, and we can remove them from CC members.

[CyberPaladin]

And as I already said, if they post against the rules, their posts can be removed, and we can remove them from CC members.
Maybe we will be able to remove them maybe we won't it depends what kind of % we a required to have to give someone the boot and other requirements that might be included may make it impossible.

What you do think of a one week waiting before membership can be approved to allow people to voice there concerns?

[Lisa0315]

I personally think that a new member should be added like a mod is elected. One person nominates them for membership, and the group votes. Mild Q&A allowed which will hopefully allow us to get to know the person better.

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

1. It appears that membership is now closed. Our wiki states that a new member must have sponsorship by five current members and at least 50 posts. Do you agree with this? Yes or No.


Yes.



2. If the answer to #1 is No, what do you think would work better? Please do not answer open membership because that is final at this point with a 70%+ margin.


See my answer for #1


3. Mods are voted in by a margin of 70% consensus. Some of our other polls have had less margins than this with less than 1/3 of membership voting. Should we add a definitive poll option to our wiki? This means that a poll would not be binding unless 70%+ margin existed and if at least 2/3 of the membership voted.

I don't know if that's really necessary. Let's simply go with what the outcome of the vote is...but as has been said, give it about 2 weeks before the poll is closed.


4. Another option has been that we would elect a board of five rule makers who would serve for a period of 3 months. At that point, new rule makers would be elected and serve for the next quarter. This would eliminate the need for polls and wikis. No rule maker could serve two consecutive quarters. Would you like this option rather than using polls and wikis?


Nope...I do NOT like this idea at all. :)

Thanks for trying to get some clarification on a few of the issues Lisa.

[soblessed53]

I second that,Thank You Lisa! Your efforts are appreciated.

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=57955&d=1135362887

[Lisa0315]

Aww...Thanks you guys! :hug:

Lisa

[jameseb]

So, I am going to step up here. Do not beat me up for it. I am not doing it as some kind of power tyrant wanting to take control. I am doing it because I see a need.


Thumbs up, thank you.



For the record, I'm going to take the stance of Miss Shelby based on her very same reasoning. However, permit me the following:

I hate the fact that we must have a "membership". It should be as simple as "post within the parameters of CC rules" and that's that. However, this Wiki project basically forces each forum to come up with member lists and qualifications so that there is some order to Wiki defined forum rules. If I could truly vote the way I wanted here, I would vote to get rid of the damn Wiki. It has become the single most alienating invention this site has ever seen.

Eric

[Lisa0315]

Well, we will see soon. If I had to guess, I am thinking that Erwin is going to restore the Creed, keep the present rules but tweak them a bit, and keep forums open including non-Christian mods. Oh, and mods will still be elected.

Lisa

[nyj]

... and we can remove them from CC members.That'll involve another protocol.

I think that having the rule "If you're a member of the liberal forum, you can't be a member of the conservative forum" will eliminate 99% of the problem. I believe the WIKI and site-wide rules will take care of the rest.

[Annabel Lee]

I would vote to get rid of the damn Wiki.

Amen

[HypnoToad]

[Removing them from CC membership will] involve another protocol.
Yes, I know.

We already discussed it, and the vast majority of those who participated said they wanted such a protocol. No one has yet done anything about it, though.

[Tangeloper]

I'll answer without reading the rest of the posts first! LOL

It appears that membership is now closed. Our wiki states that a new member must have sponsorship by five current members and at least 50 posts. Do you agree with this? Yes or No.

Yes.
Not Applicable to me
Mods are voted in by a margin of 70% consensus. Some of our other polls have had less margins than this with less than 1/3 of membership voting. Should we add a definitive poll option to our wiki? This means that a poll would not be binding unless 70%+ margin existed and if at least 2/3 of the membership voted.

I think it would be hard to enforce a quorum in an online forum as people pop in and out as their lives allow time, so NO on the quorum part.
Another option has been that we would elect a board of five rule makers who would serve for a period of 3 months. At that point, new rule makers would be elected and serve for the next quarter. This would eliminate the need for polls and wikis. No rule maker could serve two consecutive quarters. Would you like this option rather than using polls and wikis?

I think this might serve our purposes better, as we are in need of some real leadership in this forum, so as not to overburden the mods. 3 months seems like a pretty short term, but we are talking about an online forum, and not nation building! ;) If we do elect rule makers there should, IMHO, at least be discussion threads where members could state their opinions on a subject at hand, with the board making final determinations. Kind of like town hall meetings, and then board meetings where only the board members discuss amongst themselves and make final decision?

Also, in my experience serving on a board of directors for a state political party for a couple of years, it was very hard to keep things going if an entire new board was elected. I would propose the following solution so as not to render the board of directors impotent: 2-3 seats that have a term of perhaps 6 months? And 2-3 at large seats that have a term of 3 months each? That way there could be some overlap so everyone is not completely new to the process every 3 months? Perhaps even the Chair only as the one who serves the longer period of time, and 4 seats that revolved?

If we do elect a board I think mods should be independent of this process, and perhaps a rule that mods could not serve on the board? No offense to the mods, it's just that they have enough on their hands already. Also, then if there is a complaint about the way reports were handled, etc... It could perhaps be brought up before the board?

Thanks for reading my suggestions everyone! Now, I'll read the rest of the thread! :D

[Lisa0315]

I'll answer without reading the rest of the posts first! LOL

It appears that membership is now closed. Our wiki states that a new member must have sponsorship by five current members and at least 50 posts. Do you agree with this? Yes or No.

Yes.
Not Applicable to me
Mods are voted in by a margin of 70% consensus. Some of our other polls have had less margins than this with less than 1/3 of membership voting. Should we add a definitive poll option to our wiki? This means that a poll would not be binding unless 70%+ margin existed and if at least 2/3 of the membership voted.

I think it would be hard to enforce a quorum in an online forum as people pop in and out as their lives allow time, so NO on the quorum part.
Another option has been that we would elect a board of five rule makers who would serve for a period of 3 months. At that point, new rule makers would be elected and serve for the next quarter. This would eliminate the need for polls and wikis. No rule maker could serve two consecutive quarters. Would you like this option rather than using polls and wikis?

I think this might serve our purposes better, as we are in need of some real leadership in this forum, so as not to overburden the mods. 3 months seems like a pretty short term, but we are talking about an online forum, and not nation building! ;) If we do elect rule makers there should, IMHO, at least be discussion threads where members could state their opinions on a subject at hand, with the board making final determinations. Kind of like town hall meetings, and then board meetings where only the board members discuss amongst themselves and make final decision?

Also, in my experience serving on a board of directors for a state political party for a couple of years, it was very hard to keep things going if an entire new board was elected. I would propose the following solution so as not to render the board of directors impotent: 2-3 seats that have a term of perhaps 6 months? And 2-3 at large seats that have a term of 3 months each? That way there could be some overlap so everyone is not completely new to the process every 3 months? Perhaps even the Chair only as the one who serves the longer period of time, and 4 seats that revolved?

If we do elect a board I think mods should be independent of this process, and perhaps a rule that mods could not serve on the board? No offense to the mods, it's just that they have enough on their hands already. Also, then if there is a complaint about the way reports were handled, etc... It could perhaps be brought up before the board?

Thanks for reading my suggestions everyone! Now, I'll read the rest of the thread! :D

Unfortunately, it is only the two of us (so far) who see the advantages of a committee/board of directors. I agree that mods should enforce the rules rather than make them. We could of course still give our opinions as regular members.

The problem that I see in either wiki rules or polls is that it is difficult to get a consensus and no one is comfortable with saying, "Okay, this is the rule!"

If we can get more support for this idea, I strongly recommend a committee of five people. Regardless of the time frame that they serve, five people is the best number to have.

Lisa

[Tonks]

Unfortunately, it is only the two of us (so far) who see the advantages of a committee/board of directors. I agree that mods should enforce the rules rather than make them. We could of course still give our opinions as regular members.

The problem that I see in either wiki rules or polls is that it is difficult to get a consensus and no one is comfortable with saying, "Okay, this is the rule!"

If we can get more support for this idea, I strongly recommend a committee of five people. Regardless of the time frame that they serve, five people is the best number to have.

Lisa

I think that the problem is that you're simply not being patient enough with the wiki process. It seems most folks on here don't like this idea of a board of supervisors or whatever...I suppose you can continue to push for it but I'd advise actually taking into consideration what the CCC members have indicated their desire is...and letting the forum begin to develop organically.

[nyj]

The problem that I see in either wiki rules or polls is that it is difficult to get a consensus and no one is comfortable with saying, "Okay, this is the rule!"

So perhaps that indicates that we don't need those types of rules then. If there comes a time when we NEED a particular rule, I bet consensus can be found then.

IOW: No need to push things. If the community is comfortable, as is, that's a Good Thing.

[nyj]

Yes, I know.

We already discussed it, and the vast majority of those who participated said they wanted such a protocol. No one has yet done anything about it, though.See my post immediately above. No pressing need for it at the moment.

We need to finalize how we allow people to be full members of the board before we even begin to discuss how to revoke that priviledge. Though, I say again ... the rule of "Con or Lib Forum, Pick One" will curb 99% of the abuse we may have from cross-over posters hiding behind membership issues.

[Lisa0315]

I think that the problem is that you're simply not being patient enough with the wiki process. It seems most folks on here don't like this idea of a board of supervisors or whatever...I suppose you can continue to push for it but I'd advise actually taking into consideration what the CCC members have indicated their desire is...and letting the forum begin to develop organically.

Well, I think that I recognized that there were only two of us who liked the idea. I am not pushing it. I was just talking about it with the other person who liked the idea. Good grief.

Lisa