If the proposer becomes attached to keeping the process alive and stubbornly sticks to their unchanged proposal they deservedly get blocked. Someone else in the group can create a new discussion if that one is going nowhere.

it's an interesting solution to the timing problem... in the right context setting an official end date has an interesting significance which can be helpful but all too often that extra context is missing and so as it stands I found the having to set an end date when creating my own proposal baffling and frustrating .. on the other hand without an end date how can a proposal be regarded as 'closed' ? flipping it around, though the problem with this is that proposers will hardly ever actualyl 'close' their proposals will they .. so you end up with a problem of distinguishing between 'really' active proposals and ones that are still open but basically done with/closed in all but name

@christaklis could you define "admins"? Do you mean someone who is in charge and can control the discussion? My reasoning is that if the discussion gets out of hand and the proposer won't back down and the group has voted against it, then simply start another and put the proposal yourself. I'm trying to be pragmatic, but am open to changing my proposal.

first of all sorry, i forgot that admins renamed coordinators.

second, what will happen if someone put block and can't close the proposal, or the proposer won't close the proposal until he/she gets the answer he/she wants? then what we must do? create new discussion, because we can't have another proposal in the same discussion until it closes?

Yes @christaklis , create another discussion if the proposer is so unreasonable. They will not win support for their proposal, they are being disruptive. If you create a new discussion then you put a proposal before the disruptor has a chance, and the decision can be reached. All pretty unlikely...

yes but then it will be confused for some members to discuss in 2 same-different discussions for the same topic.

Easy enough to put a comment like "The proposer is making this discussion untenible, the discussion will be moved here and the proposal is now..."

Okay... I'm thinking I might have to close the proposal or change it. But before I do that I'd like to understand better why intervention on a proposal is necessary. Some questions: @strypey, what if the proposer sees the block (or continued blocks) as going against the groups core values or a danger to the groups existence? Who is right, the blocker or the proposer? The blocker has more power for disruption than the proposer because the proposer can only seek a group decision. Could you give an example where simply stating that "This proposal goes against the group's core values (or a danger to group's existence) and I urge the group to vote no" would not be enough?
@christaklis should there be conditions when admin can intervene?
@raphaeljadot are you suggesting that the group decide or select before the discussion is created, conditions around how proposals can be closed?

No and yes. Always it depends of how each group works.

For example in our group it will be needed to interfere the coordinator when it is against our constitution or our values.

But in other group maybe it would be a unique coordinator which has power from the members to act as he/she think is the right.

@deansatchell I was about to tell more or less the same think as @christaklis :)

In my mind admin should have administrative powers only. A bit like a secretary at a board meeting, a neutral party, no vote, no involvement.... implementing rules only. By giving admin unlimited power to close proposals the democratic process could be disrupted and cause grievances. I'd like to know when a group that has rules in place needs someone (a "co-ordinator") in charge. Under what circumstances is there need for interference? Someone just needs to state "This goes against the groups constitution and rules" if that is what is happening. Worst case the proposer is disruptive and refuses to close, so the group sets up a discussion to vote on kicking them out as per the rules. Then admin acts (as a neutral party). Only if admin is given this specific role and power in the rules though.