Voting seems to be in order if there is disagreement on several points. The discussion so far and all the compromises made DO seem to suggest nobody is dissatisfied with the ideas proposed here at the moment. Still, I would be for voting after we have some facts clarified, and much of our discussion will prove redundant before we are better aware of certain points. That's why this shall be my last word on this topic for now, but if you wish, please add to it and continue the discussion.

Let me go through the main points of this discussion and the related problematics to clarify what exactly I mean by what I say above.

I. There are several points suggested here it does seem most participants agree upon. I have listed here those I think are most important.


(i) Dividing the neighbourhoods based on interests what comes to Roman history.


(ii) Having parts of Rome act as our neighbourhoods for the time being, until we can build other cities and areas, these parts being, because of their reasonable number, the seven hills of Rome.

- I am suggesting that as the plans concerning the Palatine hill changed, we give one of the actual hills, for example the Aventinus, for the newcomers, Capitolinus will stay as a city-centre with no inhabitants, and the rest of the five hills plus Campus Martius = 6 areas will be divided by interests, as the scribal plan also suggested. See the scribal plan for the interest topics! (Transtiberim won't thus exist as a neighbourhood.)
- If the demis refuse to give us the possibility of 8 neighbourhoods, which I don't feel is unreasonable because one of them is for newcomers, one of them for city-centre, and the rest of them to have all interests and geographical hills represented, there will have to be a vote on which hills we pick. Rome still does have a lot of active citizens and I am hoping this will be taken into consideration. If it seems impossible, we need to vote, as the agreement so far has been on making ALL the hills neighbourhoods. Hopefully we will get a decision from the demis soon.


(iii) Having the parts of Rome "house" both residents, open boards and groups, based on the interest-theme that best suits them.

- Hopefully people can swap neighbourhoods when they so wish.
- The groups naturally get to choose their own neighbourhoods.
- I am suggesting the four Roman mainboards, which also need to be renamed not to be confused with these neighbourhoods, reside on the Capitoline hill, and are renamed after constructions on the Forum Romanum, for example Comitium (committee meeting area) for the Capitoline of today, Tabularium ("national archive") for the Palatine, perhaps the Basilicae for the other two. The final name picks can be discussed further later.


What is above is, I think, a "minimum version" of all the discussion here so far, and something I think everyone can agree upon.


II. Now, here comes two points not discussed here, but put forward by the demis on the Curia group discussions on this same subject, and on which there has been disagreement.

(iv) Boards/threads for the neighbourhoods.

- I think reasonable, if every neighbourhood can have a thread or even a board for "neighbourhood discussion" - meeting others, discussing the area, even arranging neighbourhood get-togethers etc.
- The existing groups and threads should NOT be duplicated. We've now been told they won't be, but I am unsure as to how. Perhaps by following what I said above. Hopefully!
- I think this is another issue we need to know more about before voting.

(v) Leaders for neighbourhoods.

- I think might be reasonable at some stage, but not all along. We do not want a "bureaucracy" here, and this hasn't even been suggested on this topic. Perhaps the six theme-based neighbourhoods could have "Aediles" at some stage (conveniently six). But this should not be the way this starts, in my humble opinion. Hopefully these will not be imposed on us.


III. And now some points that this discussion and the scribal plan suggest, but which apparently might be too much for the technical possibilities, at least at this stage. Both of these are, I think, very valid and would add to both the interactive and historical aspects of this site.

(vi) Clickable maps for neighbourhoods, through which public buildings housing groups and boards and private buildings housing citizens can be accessed.

- Because this and the one below were important points of the scribal plan, hopefully we will soon hear what has been decided upon these, because again these affect the possible voting - and we need to know the facts before making decisions!

(vii) Pages for the individual houses presenting the history of a public construction, and in each case telling what the building houses - the individuals and the groups, so that several can, if so wished, reside in one building. For example a family in a domus - and why not several writing groups, for example, in one public construction if they want.

Discussion is still welcome!