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...