| Revision as of 19:22, 11 October 2009 editGarion96 (talk | contribs)Administrators52,264 edits guess this one is {{rejected}} as well← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:07, 24 April 2011 edit undoCenarium (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,810 edits archiving with commentaries | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{rejected}} | {{rejected}} | ||
| This page was supposed to be used as a forum for the rejected ], the text of this page prior to its archiving can be found . | |||
| {| style="border: 1px silver solid; background: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | {{shortcut|WP:ACPD/F}} ''This page is intended for discussion among the members of the Advisory Council. Other editors are cordially invited to contribute comments or suggestions on the ].'' | |||
| |} | |||
| == Format of discussion pages == | |||
| At the moment, the discussion pages are set up as suggested by Giano and several others; we have four separate pages: | |||
| * ] (General description page, mission statement, announcements maybe too) | |||
| * ] (for general comments and inquiries about the Advisory Council) | |||
| * ] (for discussion among Advisory Council members) | |||
| * ] (for community comments about topics being discussed by the Advisory Council) | |||
| Does this seem like a reasonable setup? Would anyone prefer a different one? Does anyone have any other ideas for how we could better organize discussion? ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems fine to me, but the ] page is being used for discussion now too, which I found confusing, thinking I was on this page. ]] 14:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I've fixed that. --] (]) 16:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I am refactoring ] to be a summary of all our activities and discussions. I'm hoping that it will be a collaborative effort and a way to organize our activities. Please see ] below. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 09:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Creating an agenda == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee will probably be providing a list of topics that we might discuss fairly soon; but, beyond that, I think we need to put together a broader pool of topics that we can use as an agenda. | |||
| I suggest that everyone here comes up with a couple of topics which they would like to see discussed, and we can go from there. Does that seem reasonable? | |||
| Should we also post a request that other editors suggest topics (and, if so, where)? ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I guess other editors can post on the talk page and we can take it from there (?) - as far as topics, you just want everyone to list here then? ] (] '''·''' ]) 13:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I guess so, unless someone would prefer a different method of putting together the topic list. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 13:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm sorry to put a spanner in the works, but I don't see how members can present a subject until the council's remit has been clearly defined, which at present I don't think it has. There are subject that I would dearly love to debate, but I suspect they are not what this council has been convened for. So let's have a clear remit of what you and Jimbo (under whose auspices we are told the council sits) want from us. ] (]) 14:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As things stand, we're free to discuss any topic of our choosing, so long as it has some relevance to the improvement of the project. I don't think you need to worry about our remit for any practical purposes; I'm quite certain it would cover anything you might suggest. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 16:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think any remit (that is, transfer of legal authority) is in order since we won't be discussing specific cases. ] (]) 16:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::FYI, "remit" means: The topics, scope and depth that a person, committee, is expected to deal with. ] (]) 18:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I was using the more specific legal meaning, as I assumed that is what you meant. Apologies for the misunderstanding. ] (]) 00:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::What Giano said. At least a definition of the starting 'envisioned' framework would give us an idea of where to begin. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 16:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, the Committee is working on a list of suggested topics as we speak; but it may take some time to put together, and I don't think we need to hold off on discussing anything until we get it, if someone already has some ideas for topics. The intent, broadly speaking, was to explicitly ask about some issues, but let the advisory group choose topics itself beyond that. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 16:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Are we primarily concerned with what we ought to start doing in the future, or with improving what we do now? ''']''' (]) 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Both, I think. In practical terms, proposals for incremental changes will probably be easier to develop than ground-up redesigns, but the latter are certainly worth considering as well, even if they require more effort to produce. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 16:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| BLP is the biggest issue facing the project, in my opinion. I'm sure my work cleaning up in this area is why I was invited to join this council, so that's my topic of choice. ]] 16:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :That would probably be as good a place to start as any. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the idea is to brainstorm, right? Come up with a long list of everything that is broken on the wiki. :) ] (]) 16:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why bother? ''Everything'' is wrong, obviously :) Since this is ArbCom's grand idea, I'm mostly interested in its interests and proposed topics; I understand that this all got developed a little sooner than expected, so I'm happy to wait. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| To synthesize what I've read so far: people already have some ideas for specific issues to focus on, but some of us think our first order of business is to create something like a mission statement. Why don't we do both? We can get a draft mission statement (or multiple drafts) going, and create a list of issues that we should focus on. As for the how, I think it might be best if for issues, we do things sort of RFC style by proposing topics with a short description, and those willing to work on that topic now or in the future should sign their names below. Thoughts? <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">] ]</font> 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds like a viable option. ]] 00:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Who we are=== | |||
| I think the first order of business is to define who we are. Since we have no official powers, and no set agenda, it seems to me that we should say that we are just a group of Wikipedians who have been asked to get together, and because of the nature of how this happened, we are a group of Wikipedians who have the attention of many other Wikipedians. That is reason enough for me to start having discussions. | |||
| It is hard to have focused discussion these days. So many people start threads and you get so many opinions expressed that nothing ever seems to happen. Maybe, with this small group, we can actually have focused discussions, and better yet, maybe we can figure out ways to encourage more focused discussions throughout the project. | |||
| It has become exceedingly difficult to have community discussions about big issues. I'd like to see our group become facilitators for the community. Facilitators do not make decisions, but they help keep things organized and on topic. We can do that by creating concise pages about issues that we feel are important, summarizing the past history of the issue, help define the issue in ways that stimulate creative solutions, listing criteria for possible solutions, brainstorming, stimulating debate on possible solutions, etc... | |||
| Currently, if you want to be involved in debate about an issue, the norm seems to be that you are presented with either a poll about a single proposal with hundreds of !votes and opinions, or a RFC where there are numerous essays and !votes. It takes hours for a concerned Wikipedian to get up to speed on the issue. These processes are moribund from the weight of the community's concern. There is currently, no alternative to this, which means that these big issues fester, and people get discouraged and leave. We need an alternative. The issue pages we create could be the way for the interested Wikipedians to get up to speed on an issue quickly, and participate in an efficient and effective way. | |||
| Several months ago, I started writing up ]. I realized though that there was no mechanism that would help me get the attention of the community to try and implement a process that was so different from that which already exists. We can be that forum. I hope we will become that forum. I'm looking forward to working with all of you. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I share your concerns regarding scaling issues in general. What's key for me in this is to improve the project's efficiency in decision making, whilst retaining broad democratic input. --] (]) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :An interesting appraisal and idea, I'm not exactly sure how it would work in practice. Let's take an issue, say, FlaggedRevs, where there's been a boatload of discussion and general, if not broad, consensus to movie towards some deployment. How would we approach it? --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 22:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''ACPD function 1''':Redact and present community discussion.? As a starting point for anything we discuss here, we'll need to do that if it hasn't been done already.--] (]) 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, this is where the money is, and I have placed the question again on the RfC page. ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes! If we did nothing besides redacting the community's discussion in a centralized place we'd be making a tremendous contribution. The next step after distilling conversation is keeping discussion focused and on track. This has been one the functions of facilitators in the traditional consensus decision making process. The over arching function of the facilitator is to organize the process of making the decision. Often with community discussions at Misplaced Pages, we have massively big !votes about proposals on topics when there is no consensus about what the problem is that is being solved; when alternative solutions have not been brainstormed or discussed; etc... A good facilitator would never let that happen. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 23:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree (nor is there any "authority" that has to devolve from ArbCom to do this, btw). If we could somehow focus discussions on the key issues and organize the discussions, it might even (gasp) encourage more participation in them. ] (]) 00:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Elections=== | |||
| We are already taking some considerable flak for the rather arbitrary and unaccountable way we have been selected. I'd like to see us make an early commitment to hold future elections. I think issues surrounding this debate include 1. How to get a good cross section of the community 2. Voting method 3. When. --] (]) 21:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think elections are a terrible idea. A popularity contest isn't a good measure of who's committed to getting down to work on thinking about these issues. Instead, let's just open up this group or a new one like to completely open membership. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">] ]</font> 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::One of the reasons for the formulation of this group, as I understand it, was to provide a space with a high signal-to-noise ratio. Completely open membership does nothing to help that. Elections are also problematic, but the best choice of a bad bunch, can't we discuss how to make them a better choice rather than dismissing them out of hand? --] (]) 22:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Elections would only be necessary if we had any actual power,which we do not. As the community is at liberty to disagree with anything we might suggest, if we ever do suggest anything, there is not really anything to fear. I considered this for a while before accepting, because I have always strongly preferred open groups. But a purely advisory group can another matter--and I think of us as not even primarily that, but primarily a discussion group. And I would suggest something else that would help: the group's existence is limited to one year. That will be time enough to see if this is useful to the community. ''']''' (]) 22:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::(edit conflict) Elections seems very premature to me. I'd say that we try and establish a role for such a committee and then ''earn the community's trust''. Once a value for such an organization can be demonstrated, we could consider how members come and go. I really think the signal to noise problem is stifling the project. I don't see any way to get the community to agree on any new process other than to demonstrate how valuable it can be. We should encourage broad community input, but figure out how to do that without weighing down the process. I don't see this committee being about personalities or popularity. I assume that the larger community will also be discussing the issues that we discuss, and we should put the effort into distilling the ideas and concerns that come up. If we can be the filter for the community we fill an important vacuum. So I'd like to put off any discussion about membership until after we've created our identity and demonstrated a process for operating that is effective .-- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Reading the RfC I think the perception of power is sufficient justification. I like your idea about a one year dissolution though - in the spirit of compromise, how about we maintain as we are for six months, see what we produce, then elect? @Sam - sure, at minimum, I'm just looking for a commitment to accountability --] (]) 23:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Okay, so if we can't agree on elections and others seems to think that opening the group would create chaos, then why don't we either continue with business as usual regardless of ArbCom or community support, or take it off en.wiki to Meta or elsewhere? To be frank, it's not that I entirely disagree with the objections expressed at the RFC. It's that I want to get shit done. I'm glad this particular gathering of smart Wikipedians is interested in the same, and I want to do what we can as a group to think about the important challenges that Misplaced Pages faces, whiners and critics be damned. So let's think about how we can be productive, and less about how to appease factions who want to run around with torches and pitchforks. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">] ]</font> 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well said. I agree completely. ]] 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think elections will have to come whether the group likes it or not - it is cearly and rightly the will of the people. Having said that, should these elections be open to all? If not to whom? It's my understanding that the point of this body is to have a cross section from the community of experienced editors so a way perhaps needs to be devised to ensure candidates meet that criteria. I also think there need to be a realistic ceiling on the number of members (I like odd numbers because then you don't have stalemate. However, firstly we need to get the thing up and running in an orderly way so that prospective candidates can see what it is they are standing to be elected for. I am quite happy to say that I will stand for election in a years time. Which should see some purpose sorted.] (]) 00:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think Giano has a point, but I agree with Steven that we should try and get stuff done before we get muddled into another layer of voting and tallies and crud. If we can't do anything worthwhile, or the amount of energy expended is no less than through normal channels, then we can dissolve it before it turns into an institution. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 00:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have a feeling we were selected in part, with the method we were, because to be completely honest getting anything new off the ground on this site anymore, beyond the most absolutely trivial, is impossible. Everyone digs in their heels for their 1) personal political reasons; 2) philosophical reasons; 3) the 'new thing' would minimize their 'power', so they dig in to stop it. Since we have no apparent direct power over anything but as individual users, elections are largely going to be ceremonial and a sign-off on our ideas. Or something. But yeah, we will need these eventually. Rather than do anything silly or over the top, we should go about it in the context that Giano described above: | |||
| # "elections will have to come whether the group likes it or not - it is cearly and rightly the will of the people" | |||
| # "a realistic ceiling on the number of members" | |||
| # "we need to get the thing up and running in an orderly way so that prospective candidates can see what it is they are standing to be elected for" | |||
| My take on this is #1, absolutely. Appointment should be 101% community-driven ''only''. #2, definitely. If we're going to go through with this and see it through, this project should have as mentioned also a very high signal to noise ratio. Just something to think about, maybe have an expansion of up to 3 users per year, use RFB numbers, 0-3 appointed per year. We can cook up term limits as well if people think that's helpful, but since we don't actually decide anything, like the AC, I don't know what good it would do. Just thoughts on that. #3 is the most important now and aside from idle inner thoughts #1 and #2 don't matter yet, and can be came back to. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Rather verbosley, that is what I was trying to say, the things needs to up and running before elections etc, and also let's see if it's going to work out and serve any useful purpose. ] (]) | |||
| :An RFB like election to be a member of a discussion group? Pass on that. I have enough shit to deal with in my personal life and better things to do than to relive an RFA where I get slighted for every naughty word I ever said, read complete fabrications about my edit history and get compared to one of the site's more notorious editors. The project is broken. As noted above, it's literally impossible to change anything that isn't completely trivial at this point. Some group is always going to find a reason to oppose anything. ''This'' is one of the projects major problems. My sole purpose for even being here at this point is to advocate for the living subject of our shameful biographies. I became entirely fed up with the bullshit of this project many months ago and I'm all about discussing these various issues and trying to come up with ways to fix them, but I'll be damned if I'm going to subject myself to a popularity contest in order to present ideas to a community that would just assume shoot them down because they weren't invited to participate or have some ridiculous fear of a thinktank having power. ]] 00:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Like I said, just tossing it out as what our priorities are in what I saw as the order (and Giano was more succint as always than I ever am). I wouldn't 'run' myself if it was an RFB thing, especially since all we can do is "advise". But you hit the nail on the head of the fundamental flaw of Misplaced Pages: Jimmy's 100% open model doesn't scale for governance no matter how some people like to pretend. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wouldn't run, either. I'm interested in the idea-generation part, not the electioneering part. I don't want to have change my behavior on-wiki so that I can court votes. ] (]) 00:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Same here. I wouldn't run for anything. As the project gets bigger and bigger, I'm enjoying it less and less. That's why I'm here talking. So along those lines, how about making our first topic of discussion '''Misplaced Pages dysfunction'''. --]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 01:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ←So let's say there's a general opinion to table the whole issue of elections for the foreseeable future? --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 01:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. Let's get some work done first, at least on defining scope and the issues at hand. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">] ]</font> 01:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd so say. We all have better things to do than campaign for support from the community to discuss problems amongst ourselves and present ideas for improvement to them. ]] 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 01:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This is self defeating. As the announcement says: | |||
| :: ''convening an advisory group with members invited from across the breadth of Misplaced Pages.'' | |||
| If you want people from other communities to advise arbcom, going election path is silly, as most useful people won't bother then (since enwiki's elections are often a drama source and a tiring event). And usually advisors in any organizations aren't elected (think for example: ], those aren't elected) and that's precisely because what's needed it's the expertise opinions and not the popularity. | |||
| This whole election thing is bad since it self defeats the purpose of having diverse views. It closes the door and makes this to become closed withhin the same enwiki's bubble: only enwiki people will know about it, participate, candidate and get elected) and so the whole idea of an '''advisory group''' gets shortcomed getting people with the same "wikicultural mindset". | |||
| The community elects the arbcom members, but if the community elects who can the arbcom ask for advice, then it's making things more closed, not open (as paradoxical that may sound). | |||
| So, in short: advisors shouldn't be elected because they're there to say what needs to be said, not what arbcom/community wants to be said (which would be the ouctome of elections in the long term). -- <small>]] </small> 15:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Elections - motion==== | |||
| :''The legitimacy of this motion has been ].'' | |||
| I know we've not heard from everyone on this yet, but I put forward the compromise suggested above, so that we might move on with other things. We've got some that think we need elections, others that don't and some that won't stand if we do. If we commit to elections in a year, those that won't stand have a year here to make a difference. For those who might stand, our success or failure will be measured by whether we've had anything adopted by the community. | |||
| 1) Elections to the council will be held on 1st August 2010. The intent, nature and details of the elections will be decided prior to July 2010. | |||
| :'''Support''' | |||
| :#proposed--] (]) 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :# '''Support''' This is a fundamental basis of the ACPD, it needs to be 100% established that the community will have the opportunity to select the advisers. However, they must be editors of long standing who have shown a personall commitment to the project and representative of all aspects of the community. ] (]) 11:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :# '''Support''' I think this will help community confidence in the Council. I would like careful thought to ensure a breadth of candidates are elected, not just the "popular" and the "well-known" and "the usual crowd". But we're capable of careful thought, I have confidence. --] (]) 10:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' | |||
| :# I strongly oppose elections as that is precisely one of the things that are broken on enwiki: anything has to be voted, and we were called because of our experience not to serve a community position but to advise. I have no intentions of going htrough the sillyness of an election in order to give advice, so should it happen, you'd simply not count on me. I no longer consider myself part of the enwiki community (while I still form part of the large wm communty), and that's why I accepted: I think I can give a non polluted external neutral point of view on any issue. See also my argument in the section above the '''motion''' -- <small>]] </small> 15:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :# Since this council doesn't have any formal authority, elections aren't necessary. ] (]) 23:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Abstain''' | |||
| *Abstain for now, as I don't think it's important to figure out an election scheme if we're not sure it's going to work. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''comment''' | |||
| I'd also like to suggest we dispense as much as possible with this archaic voting mechanism per Arbcom for absolutely every decision, contested or not. Preferable would be to create project pages we all edit. If there's disagreement on those pages, we then come to the talk page to vote if and when necessary. --] (]) 02:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Please! no voting. I'd suggest instead a different process. First we discuss, then when it looks like things are coming together someone says "This looks like we are reaching consensus, are there any concerns that have not been addressed". We then discuss the concerns. At some point, someone calls for consensus by saying "I'd like to call for consensus" and we sign below that without comment if we are in agreement. If someone does fully agree they can say "declare reservations", "stand asside" or "block" per ]. We are a small enough group that we can use standard concensus decision making techniques. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 03:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Also, we should move s l o w l y ! We should wait a while before trying to decide anything. I think there are members of this council that haven't even been here yet! -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 03:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yes, there are. It would be nice if this group could operate outside of wikitime to allow everyone time to participate and to think slowly and carefully. ] (]) 05:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Hello to all. As one of those who has not been on wikitime (and, indeed, hardly on wiki) for a while, for various reasons, mostly work and travel, I echo the plea to go slowly. Meanwhile, I'm also wary of elections in that any elected body will at some point (and quite logically) want power to go with its democratic mandate. I prefer to think of this as a purely advisory body, whose advice can be rejected with complete freedom. --] (] • ]) 04:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*I'm still uneasy with ignoring the community in this way and the perception of our illegitimacy is becoming hard to ignore. I'm of the opinion that WP should be more, not less democratic, and providing we can find a useful solution to the 'consensus scaling' problem, then the community really should be in control. This real politic justification for continuing with vague assurances down the line, sits uncomfortably with me. I don't think any of us actually want to stand at an election - certainly not me - so how can we claim any kind of legitimacy? My ego really isn't so big as to think it's because I can be the saviour of wikipedia without mandate. --] (]) 22:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Again, my view is that the more illegitimate this Council is, the better. As soon as we go trying to make it legitimate, then that will (and I repeat, quite logically) suggest that it should have some real powers. I don't think that this Council should have any real powers; hence, keep it as illegitimate as possible. | |||
| ::*My sense is that much of the opposition to this Council comes from the notion that ArbCom was trying to construct some new element of Misplaced Pages governance, i.e. a body that would be somehow part of the project's power structure. It's on that basis that people are claiming that it's illegitimate. And indeed, if this Council were part of a governance structure then those complaints surely have merit. But no: we've just been asked to come up with some ideas. Let's go to it... --] (] • ]) 01:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I would like to open up this council to the entire community. This would be very difficult to do. What I am now thinking is that we should consider ourselves to be just organizers and facilitators, and that once we have created a process and worked out the bugs, we would be able to open up discussions on issues to the entire community. What I don't want to see is huge RFCs filled with comments and positions, lots of !votes on quickly created proposals, long rambling contentious "discussions", etc... Without ground rules, that is what we likely get if we opened up the membership -- because that is the current wiki-culture. Without any power, nor defined tasks, I just don't understand what purpose would be served by having an election. However, if we do want to tackle some big issues and get the entire community involved, I think it is possible to do so, just not quite yet. Somebody has to first lay the foundation to make that possible, and I think we are the group to do it.-- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*Ok. Elections may not be the solution right now, let me rephrase the question - are we going to do ''anything'' now to attempt to allay the strong community objections that are being voiced? If we're just going to blithely ignore it, you can count me out. If I feel the urge, I might go through the RfC this weekend and quantify and categorise the objections to see what we're dealing with, I agree some is hyperbolic, but there is some substance there, burying our heads in the sand, ignoring public outcries and arrogantly proceeding in the face of strong objections is one of the things I've complained about in the past of others, and I don't feel I can join their ranks - this needs addressing in some way. --] (]) 16:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*How about humbly proceeding in a way that produces concrete information about how the group will work to better inform the ongoing RFC? I don't see much ignoring of public outcries going on. Many of us have made an effort to respond to objections although some of those that make less sense or are based on mistaken premises might have been ignored so far. I definitely think we need to evaluate the RFC when it is done. I don't object to starting an evaluation earlier if you want to go through it now.<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I think the din of community outrage will make any meaningful work here difficult to accomplish unless this is dealt with. I'm going to mark myself as inactive until such time as we are ready to discuss it. For info, I've seen at least a very decent suggestion to bridge the gap here from ] which I think warrants close scrutiny - . I've also had a suggestions emailed to me, which in essence says "if we are to have appointments of cronies, let have everyone's cronies. and an elected component and a random component...... | |||
| *18-30 members in total; | |||
| *1/3 hand-picked (by whom doesn't actually matter – I'd suggest Jimbo or the WMF nominates 2, Arbcom nominates 2, Raul and Sandy nominate 1, the Counter Vandalism and/or Bot Approval people each nominate 1 | |||
| *1/3 elected; | |||
| *1/3 "anyone who's interested put your names in the hat" and selected by lottery. | |||
| Please ping me when we're ready. --] (]) 15:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Instead of figuring out a way to have elections, I'd much rather figure out a way of focussing and facilitating community concerns and ideas using a process that encourages the participation of everyone in the community that is interested in taking part. The problem, as I see it, is that the mechanisms that we have use to make decisions (talk page conversations, RFCs and straw polls) have not scaled effectively. The knee-jerk reaction to this is to say that we need to establish some sort of representative democratic system. To do so -- without analyzing the problems we have and considering alternative paths -- does not mean that the new democratic system will be any better than the current anarchy. It could conceivably be worse. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> | |||
| ==the view others take of us== | |||
| It is quite obvious from the RfC that the view others take of us -- and good people too, many of whom I respect enormously -- is different from the way we see it. Based on the discussion above, most of us see our role as trying if the process of a discussion in a moderately small varied group not focused of specific issues produces some ideas that the community might want to consider, or at least clarifies some issues. There is a good deal of suspicion expressed of anything from arb com. Perhaps we can do it best free completely of their sponsorship, and I wonder if the proposal of doing it at meta might make some sense. At this point, considering what has been said, we do absolutely have to work in public. I do not see arb com's role in this as wrong, though clearly they misjudged how to suggest it. When there's a vacuum and action is needed, somebody has to start things going. I unfortunately wonder if the prejudice against anything they suggest will lead people to discard even their good ideas. My view has always been that we should take good ideas from wherever they're offered. ''']''' (]) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :''I unfortunately wonder if the prejudice against anything suggest will lead people to discard even their good ideas.'' I think that's clear. And I absolutely agree with your last sentence. ]] 06:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bluntly, I'm not sure if any sort of binding consensus will come out of the RfC, and I fully intend on ignoring it, really. It was hastily put up by people with a bone to pick (not to say some of the people opposed don't have good reasons), and given the division on self-electing groups anyway I'd hardly say there's a mandate to shut it down. We can shed the Arbcom involvement, if we must, but that would be largely symbolic if we're still operating in the same capacity. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 12:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Broadly I agree with you, I don't personally see a problem with a couple of Arbs being aboard, at least, it ensures that the opinions expressed are noted and taken back. However, the chief grouse seems to be it was a "fait accompli", which is complete tosh as here we are trying to establish the rudiments in a very public forum. So, here we are, here we sit, ignore hell breaking loose, and let's get on with what we are here for, advise the arbcom. My advice to the Arbcom is that they recall their fallen comrades, get a grip and we all start work. We are here because we were asked by the Arbcom - a body elected to make decisions - they made one. ] (]) 13:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Who knew it would take a unilateral act of ArbCom to bring us together, G. :) On one hand, I do want to get crackin', but I figure that since some members of our august body have not made it this way and the RfC dust is still in the air, we take our sweet time (at least until everyone can get here and chime in, and the RfC fallout settles) and sit tight for a bit. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 14:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Mmmm. I am not a person given to waitng patiently, or waiting for dust to settle. However, I suppose a brief pause for the other members to catch up would do no harm, so long as it is brief - where are they anyway? ] (]) 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I assume doing more productive, nonwiki things? Summer is somewhat of a bad time to do these things, for us in the northern hemisphere. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 21:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm happy to wait. Aren't we waiting for Arbcom to give us a brief? --] (]) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I suppose so; I am begining to feel we have been dumped here and abandoned. In fact, I'm starting to feel like a lemon in a martini lacking any gin. ] (]) 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ←I agree about sitting tight until the RFC has cooled down. But the big question in my mind is: With the resignations, does ArbCom even want the group anymore? I haven't heard a real statement on the matter. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">] ]</font> 23:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No matter what the ArbCom says, I hope we can work and see what we can come up with. In fact, we might be better off if we just declare our independence, say that we have nothing whatsoever to do with ArbCom, and declare our allegiance to the community at large. A think tank working on Misplaced Pages's major systemic problems is urgently needed. Since we are not claiming that we have any authority or power, why cant' we just proceed as we would like without any official sanction? If twenty or so well meaning editors can come together and come up some good ideas, perhaps the same group can work to win the hearts and minds of the community to implement their suggestions. I also think that we should think about how this can be a productive forum for the entire community by creating new mechanisms for handling major issues. Once we do that, we could remove the "by invitation" restriction. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 23:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd like to cut loose too, but fear that the only thing between this council as currently conceived and a successful MfD, is the supposed legitimacy from Jimbo. --] (]) 23:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This thing started on a weekend, and I usually don't edit on a weekend, which in this case is a good thing because it helped keep me from being sucked into the bickering going on on other pages about this council. Well, we're here, so we might as well get started. I propose that each of us a posts a short lists of topics we would like to discuss, then we can select several topics which are common to more than one person and divide the page up into sections to discuss each, or else create sub-pages for each. How does that sound? ] (]) 00:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Someone just let me know that ArbCom may provide us a list of topics to start with. That's fine with me. ] (]) 00:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::We are perfectly capable of creating our own list, ArbCom can give us their list and I think we should take suggestions from the community and as well (I'll add a section on the talk page). I'd like to start with: | |||
| ::*an open and structured policy development forum to centralize and organize the discussion of contentious and difficult issues. Or to frame this more broadly, "Misplaced Pages problem solving dysfunction". | |||
| ::Perhaps that is all we really need to do. Once we create the forum to replace ourselves, we can dissolve. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 00:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::All? We'll have this done by tomorrow. :) I like this idea as I see this as a way to enable the community to make decisions that it currently is hamstrung from doing right now by models that don't work. ] (]) 00:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you mean a discussion about proposing the creation of a policy-oversight process or committee to oversee Misplaced Pages policy maintenance, development, improvement, and disputes, that was going to be one of the topics on my short list also. ] (]) 00:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To be more abstract then the above, I assume what you're referring to Sam is contentious issues where it is difficult to arrive at a "consensus" despite repeated polls, RfCs, et al, and what to do then? --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 00:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::With that subject proposal and considering much of the discussion here, I'd like to remind people that we're not limited to dealing with governance issues. In my mind, it might be easier for us to tackle something else — ideally something content-related — first, rather than dive in to trying to fix policy creation or other systemic social problems. Not to say that I'm trying to redirect attention right now, it's just something to keep in mind. Whenever we do cover such topics, then I'd like to see try and first just synthesize and describe the problems at hand in a cogent way, rather than rush in to developing solutions. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">] ]</font> 00:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You're absolutely right, we need to identify and define the problems first before proposing solutions. Here's some issues that I see: | |||
| ::::::::* No orderly process for managing, interpreting, and changing policy. | |||
| ::::::::* No institutionalized support and guidance for Misplaced Pages's admin corps. | |||
| ::::::::* ''Please add more''. ] (]) 01:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent)Yes, yes yes. I do mean "contentious issues where it is difficult to arrive at a "consensus" despite repeated polls, RfCs, et al, and what to do then?" I fully agree that we need to analyze and describe problems before trying to solve them. I tried to frame this as broadly as I could by saying "Misplaced Pages problem solving dysfunction". Does anyone have a better way to say this? I would like us to take the path of identifying problems, analyzing them, defining them, creating criteria to be met, and brainstorming possible solutions before we get around to picking solutions and implementing them.]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 01:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think we probably all know how to do this, but just in case, a formal guide on how to define a problem. ] (]) 01:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well call me stupid, that's actually a helpful link I'll have to keep around :) @Sam I don't think it was unnecessarily clear, I was just double-checking. "Problems with forming consensus" could be another roundabout way of describing it. Anyhow, if we're on that vein, here's the issues as I see them: | |||
| ::*Consensus is rather murky, even in its description | |||
| ::*Because it relies on strength of arguments rather than pure votes, it makes it hard to quantify | |||
| ::*It is easy to make consensus what any given editor wants it to be | |||
| ::*Consensus can too easily be the result of insular groups (a recent example in my mind is a wikiproject decided that what FAC regulars consider unreliable sources to be reliable enough for them.) | |||
| ::*Since it's hard to 'declare' consensus in contentious issues, momentum slows and rather than addressing the problem, resources are allocated to addressing consensus. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 02:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| One thing about being in arbcom is logitudinal exposure to some of wikipedia's trouble areas - I guess, where the 'pedia doesn't "work". However, I have more hope now in some areas - eg. Nationalist disputes I feel are workable ''as long as'' the committee directs the community to find a well-circumscribed solution in naming (but I might be prematurely optimisitic in this). Ditto fiction notability - although everyone squabbles, I get the feeling there is a boundary of notability and detail where it is not too hard to tell what will be kept or deleted at AfD. | |||
| Secondary to Cla68 above, I hadn't really given much thought to it but subtle policy changing over time does worry me, as it can be insidious and we have alot of policies. I know it concerned Kirill to the point he wrote a proposal last year too. I will flick up a link in a minute unless someone beats me to it. So, yes I agree policies need some form of centralised monitoring and/or vetting. I also agree in some form of support for admin corps, as I can see a need for upskilling in areas such as dealing with frustrated editors and defusing rather than ramping up emotion. BLP is a concern as the legal implications need to be adequately addressed, and concerns confirmed or fears allayed. Other areas will come up, but this is to get the ball rolling. ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Another possible topic is the enforcement of ], although I hope to draft a solid point-counterpoint RfC to address that and since there's never really been an attempt to cast a wide net, I'm not sure it's to the level of "broken consensus"... I'll get back to you guys though :) --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 03:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I think the original fuzzily-stated terms of reference (I'm sure I'm not the only one who asked a bunch of questions before agreeing to join) may have provoked the community's distrust. It's unfortunate that Arbcom felt compelled to make a statement about the Council ahead of when it wished to and therefore, IMHO, before a statement could be written in a manner that didn't leave room for this mistrust. Only way to even try to allay it is to start doing something, really. --] (]) 11:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Problem statements== | |||
| I'll lead off with a problem statement. If no one thinks this is the correct thread to start at this point, then ignore it and continue with other discussions. Otherwise, please feel free to post your own problem statements: | |||
| #'''Policies''': I think there is a problem with policies in general because I have witnessed editors arguing over vague policies, including . I have also seen editors trying to alter policies to give them an advantage in content disputes and have seen what appears to be groups of editors involved with controlling policy pages to keep "their" version intact, while ignoring the policy page's talk page discussion or consensus. Often, policy changes seem to occur just because one small group of editors is more persistent than others. These policy issues are occurring throughout Misplaced Pages, because policy governs everything we do. I think there are several reasons that it is occuring: POV-pushing agendas, status-quo adherents, and honest differences of opinion. I think that policy administration is a problem that should be addressed. ] (]) 10:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Addition and retention of users''' Recently, it has become difficult to add and retain new users to Misplaced Pages (see ] for the data). Moreover, our current users are more divided between one-off users and hardcore users with fewer and fewer occasional editors. Without a way to increase the number of editors and particularly those who edit occasionally, the community will eventually collapse as more and more responsibility falls on fewer and fewer people with no replacements in sight. ] (]) 12:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Democracy vs. management'''. We are not a democracy, we are not a bureaucracy, we are not a micro nation, apparently there's many things we're not, but few people can tell you what we are. Jimbo is fond of talking about 'constitutions', 'monarchies' etc. but often acts in ways consistent more with management than democratic structures. We have the semblances of some democratic structures, but lack any kind of shared vision and the resultant fudge is the source of considerable confusion and conflict. What part might Jimbo play in all of this and should his role be replaced over time? As an open source project to build an encyclopaedia founded on the principle of the 'wisdom of the crowds', what is the most effective structure to achieve our aims? --] (]) 10:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Decision making in a large community''' Consensus vs. !vote, mandate democracy, accountability, representation, RFA etc. etc. I'll kick this off by asserting a few premises for discussion - "WPs current decision making mechanisms are flawed" 1. They are inefficient, requiring undue amounts of time and space. 2. They are ineffective when dealing with complex issues and mitigate too much towards preserving the status quo. 3. With 155,000 odd active participants, decisions made by a small fraction of that number are not democratic. 4. "Consensus" as a model for large scale participatory discussions does not work.--] (]) 11:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''BLP'''. The project doesn't have the resources to monitor or maintain all of the biographies of living people. This not only serves as a potentially huge legal risk for the Foundation, but we also have a moral obligation to protect the living subjects of our articles. The problem is years old and continuously growing. ]] 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Sources, edit wars, undue weight.''' Do our current policies and/or their implementation, make it difficult to assert mainstream positions in articles? Can content disputes be handled better? How robust is our neutral point of view? --] (]) 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Functionary issues re. probity and appearance''' Term lengths, holding other positions, retention of privileges after resignation or end of terms, public perception, impeachment mechanisms. --] (]) 13:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| I'll agree with point 1. And wikilawyers are adept at making the most of problematic wording. IAR used to be a way this problem was avoided, but unsurprisingly in retrospect, IAR has come to be treated with great suspicion. I think that the groups that habitually monitor policy pages they are familiar with may have become too close to them and it may be a useful exercise for us to take a look at a policy at a time, with a fresh perspective. I'd start with the deletion policy, because it's something that causes a lot of problems, especially with new editors, whom we should encourage. I think that our role should be to hammer out some problems and potential solutions and then float them at the VP, flagged at CENT and relevant talk pages for the community to assess and take forward as they please. This would fit the non-decision making role this Council was sold to me on, and could allay community concerns about it. I have no interest in being part of a group of undemocratically appointed superusers, but would be very interested in working with a small but diverse group of experienced users to bring forward ideas for community assessment. (If we get good at it, the ultimate project would probably be to find ideas to "fix" ] <ahem>) --] (]) 10:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Should we create an '''Agenda''' subpage for all of this? --] (]) 11:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sounds good. I think a liberal use of subpages to help keep discussions organized would be helpful. ] (]) 11:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| May be worth not trying to be too ambitious - rather than an agenda, perhaps a list of potential first projects, from which we should select one, suck it and see. I think we'll learn a lot from doing the task, which should inform how we move on, or tell us that the idea is a busted flush. --] (]) 11:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds like a good idea to me. ] (]) 11:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Should it be a subpage of this one (/Forum/Agenda), or just off the main page? --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it's important the community also get a linked space to comment on our discussions. To do this is I suggest we might use the following format. | |||
| :::#] Foo being the particular issue we're looking at - might include sections as described in Cla68s ie. Defining the problem, causes, evidence (I'm very keen on getting empirical evidence into this process - Awadewit's is excellent btw, thanks.] | |||
| :::#] Talk page for our discussions of the issue. | |||
| :::#] Parallel project page edited by the community. | |||
| :::#] Talk page for community discussions of our work @No.1 and their own at No.3 | |||
| :::My hope is threefold. 1. We benefit from the good community voice and ideas. 2. The community gets input 3. We can still have fairly streamlined discussions. We might also think about using something like ]'s tabbed user page to organise that.--] (]) 13:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| @Dweller - looking at the list above, there's clearly some over-arching 'meta' issues and other more specific detail issues. I think you are right, we should pick up some of the smaller ones first as baby steps. As time goes on though, I'd like us to try and investigate problems facing the project in the medium and long term. --] (]) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Based on my opinions of the list, the "smaller" ones appear to be lower-level content (basically everything save BLPs, I know Jen is interested in tackling that) and things such as user participation. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 15:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I think it's a good idea to start discussing one issue at a time. Let's see how it goes. I'm not too concerned about the fuss that has arisen about the very existence of this group. In the end, the value of any such body is only justified if it can prove some worth, by generating some ideas and sustained reflections on issues that many have identified as concerns. I should say that in general I'm fairly laissez faire. I concur with the last line of a review I just read of Andrew Lih's ''The Misplaced Pages Revolution'': "truly, for all its flaws, Misplaced Pages is a wonderful thing" (David Runciman, "Like Boiling a Frog," ''London Review of Books'' 31.10 : 16). There is lots of talk about this or that being broken on Misplaced Pages, but I'm not always convinced. I am, however, happy to be convinced otherwise. --] (] • ]) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Governance, in general==== | |||
| One interesting aspect of this whole brouhaha is that there does seem to be a general consensus that Misplaced Pages "governance" (broadly defined) is a problem. Those opposed to this group, however, appear to believe that this advisory council is intended to be a solution to that problem, and therefore are proposing other ways in which this group should or could have been constituted or presented. I think that that is putting the cart before the horse. But the fact that people feel so strongly about the issue indicates that it is a topic that any such group should discuss, perhaps with a certain measure or urgency. On the other hand, it's a huge issue to tackle. And precisely the cacophony that has arisen also demonstrates how tricky the issue is. --] (] • ]) 17:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Data gathering and analysis=== | |||
| I was impressed by Pixelface's work on analysing the development of policies of notability - see ] and ]. There are more links on his ]. I wonder whether plotting the development of other guidelines is helpful in this regard - eg socking policies, civility policies etc. Subpages could have a temporal 'map' on them plotting out timelines. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Introductions== | |||
| Unfortunately I was offline this weekend and missed all the fuss. Rather than spending today trying to read all the reaction; I would like to take a different approach. I think it would help everyone see the shape of things if we all took the time to introduce ourselves, explain our thoughts on community governance, and introduce one topic that we think would be suitable for group discussion. | |||
| ===Birgitte SB=== | |||
| I have been around since 2006 and have seldom been active in any high profile issues on en.WP. I have take a more vocal role on the foundation-l mailing list and en.WS, where I am a b'crat. Although I expect few people here to be familiar with me from foundation-l, I have a long advocacy there for the self-governance of the wikis. I think it is important that each wiki has the ability to approach our common goals as the community sees fit, which may end up being very different from how another wiki does things. This view is opposed to the view that dozens of policies and procedures should kept at Meta and merely translated to each wiki. I think the key to success for the wikis is this sort of experimentation where each wiki is trying the solution that they strongly believe in rather than merely enforcing one that that handed to them. As with any sort of experiment, there are always failures but wikis seem to naturally abandon those things which don't work or else mold them into something more practical. This group I see as such an experiment if anything useful comes out of it will likely remold itself around the sort of things it succeeds at and abandon the kind of inquiries that yield nothing useful. I imagine the people involved by the same token, will stick around if they are useful and fade away if they are not. I don't expect this group will directly change anything, but I hope that it may offer a better focus than discussions might have elsewhere and that such focused attention might lead to changes. | |||
| As I think there is little attention given to problems that both long-term and do not revolve around editors, the topic I wish to bring forward is both. Below is a table that compares problematically tagged article by their categories from August of 2007, the last time Dragons Flight, with current numbers. Some of these problems revolve around core principles, other mere style. Some are exactly what they claim, others tend attract more important problems than stated (i.e. {{tl|cleanup}} is often put on cut-and-paste copyvios). Besides the efforts of the Stub-sorting project, none of these categories that were selected as worth watching two years ago have found an effective solution by self-selected volunteers. Is there anything that can be done to motivate editors to make some headway on any of these backlog? Is there something that can be done to direct attention to articles that have "priority" problems? And what problem should be considered "priority"? ''The math was done by hand and may contain errors''<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
| ! Category !! 8-07 !! 7-09 !! % Change | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 26,369 || 57,163 || +112% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 10,122 || 16,997 || +40% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 12,708 || 17,852 || +40% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 2,018 || 4 || -100% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 305 || 14,295 || +4,587% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 32 || 2,536 || +7,825% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] ||75,599 || 151,075 || +100% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] & ] combined || 83,512 || 203,567 || +144% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 25,976 || 140,656 || +441% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 636 || 709 || +12% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 2,219 || 7,695 || +71% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1,093 || 19,587 || +1,692 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 9,276 || 20,284 || +119% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1,270 || 3,487 || +175% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 4,660 || 6,691 || +44% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 3,611 || 9,716 || +169% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 5,640 || 9,419 || +67% | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 2,091 || 2,547 || +22% | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Wikivoices recording on group== | |||
| Please consider joining the ] tomorrow, which will be discussing this group. As of now, I will be the only one of us there (and I have to be late). Thanks. ] (]) 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately I won't be around online at that time either, I hope some others can do it :) --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 19:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sadly, people have enough of a problem understanding my wiki-chat, if they heard my voice and accent in real life - they would realise that I can barely speak the language in an intelligible way. ] (]) 20:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, then maybe the listeners would think that we're incomprehensible anyhow, and will back off :P --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 21:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Who can get the Flagged Revs coding done?== | |||
| So we're here to brainstorm, let's try a real life scenario: . Apparently some additional coding work needs to be done to facilitate the activation of the approved Flagged Revisions process. What can we do or suggest to get that done? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 21:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't have the technical expertise to provide much assistance with this, but if any grunt-level work is necessary, please let me know what I can do. ] (]) 23:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I recall, the "deadline" given was Wikimania, so they have a month and change to effect, well, changes. But I'm not sure what we can do about it. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I've been told this is being worked on and is supposed to roll out in August. ]] 01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Who is working on this? Can we get a report? --] (]) 10:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've sent an email requesting updated info. ] 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *You have to find a developer that you know personally and convince them put some more time into it. The one on one approach is the only thing that is reliably successful. More long-term solutions are a) learn to write code or b) organize a chapter to hire a developer to do what you think most important. And please, please do not write to foundation-l about it again. en.WP has a long record of having bugs resolved at speed beyond any other wiki except maybe de.WP, which has hired dedicated developers. There is not much sympathy for the situation with non-en.WP people there, where everyone can name bugs that are years old. If you must have updates and information, ask the devs on IRC. They are always there and it is less likely to spark a derisive comments about en.WP than on the mailing lists.<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 13:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Birgitte, I'm afraid you might have to forgive my utter ignorance and get me up to speed here - what is all that about? I've paid little attention to flagged revisions. My understanding is this. 1. Flagged revisions were successfully tried on the german wikipedia. 2. Attempts at getting consensus to implement them on EN failed and Jimbo intervened to force them through. 3. We're still waiting for that to happen because the form the community did like wasn't implementable without a software change. 4. They're seen as an important safeguard in the BLP debate. | |||
| ::<s>If they're already implemented on DE is that a hack then, rather than a change to the mediawiki software? Do we need someone to do the hack here? </s> (Now read ], it's an extension). Isn't Brion Vibber our lead developer? Is there no formal 'list' of changes required to the software that the development team are working through? Why the resistance to simply asking questions of developers? | |||
| ::I seem to have inadvertently touched a massive nerve here and I'm baffled. --] (]) 14:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::By all means ask the developers directly. I don't mean to say I object to you asking brion, but your asking him is unlikely to actually change the amount of time he can dedicate to the issue. At least that has always been my experience with past issues. If you can find a volunteer developer that that someone knows more personally, and I mean personally in loose internet terms, and convince them to look into the issue and see if they can take on some of the work; you are better likely to speed things along. This is what has worked for me. I doubt there is any formal list of changes, but I do not know. I am afraid I came off differently than intended. I am not upset or anything.<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 17:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::BTW my response was written in answer to ''What can we do or suggest to get that done?'' rather than a direct reply to you. If that is part of your confusion. That is why a started it at a bullet point.<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I spoke to Sue Gardner yesterday, and she assured me that Wikimania is still the goal. There are a number of reasons why throwing more people at a programming issue doesn't always help, so what I propose is that we trust Brion's timeline and leave them all alone until Wikimania. I'd say we should even give them a few weeks after that if there is some glitch. And then we start raising hell (but gently, respectfully) if it's not rolled out 4 weeks past Wikimania. I've been pushing for this and waiting for this for years now, I suppose a few more weeks won't kill us. :-) --] (]) 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the update. ] 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::. ] (]) 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::. ] (]) 01:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==A proposal on how to proceed== | |||
| May I suggest that we create and demonstrate a workable forum for having community discussions? I find it interesting that while Misplaced Pages has been able to collaboratively create almost three million articles, with many of very high quality, it is very difficult to have a focused community discussion. I don't think that talk pages are very effective tools for keeping discussions focused. What is needed, is a collectively written page about each issue that outlines the issue's history and documents -- concisely -- the work that is being done; an analysis and definition of the problem; community concerns, possible solutions, etc. | |||
| As it is now, the more important the issue, the more people will become involved. The more people that become involved, the longer the opinion statements and rebuttals. The longer the verbiage gets, the less likely it will be read by anyone. So we end up with hundreds of people talking and nobody listening. Many people (myself included) just stay away. Either they find the rancor distasteful, or just don't have the time and energy to read through everything to understand what is going on. I find it very difficult to have meaningful conversations with more than one other person on a talk page. I don't know how to have a conversation with several hundred. | |||
| Many people have commented that consensus is not working. I have a little bit of training in formal consensus decision making and have seen it at work in several institutions. Misplaced Pages, has not practiced consensus decision making as I have known it. What is missing is ]. So I think that we should start a new process of facilitating the work on resolving issues. | |||
| As facilitators, we would collect, summarize, refactor, edit and redact all the conversation about an issue so that any Wikipedian could quickly see where we have come from, where we are at and where we are going with any issue. An "issue page" can be created for every issue. Everyone in the larger Misplaced Pages community could participate, and eventually we could create a mechanism to open up the entire process. Since our current culture does not embrace using facilitation for solving issues, it will take some effort on our part to get it going. | |||
| I suggest that we replicate the rules for creating articles as a starting guide for creating issue pages. They would be created with a neutral POV, be cited with links to discussions, essays, conflicts, etc... They would NOT be the place to have discussions, polls or requests for comments. Wikis are wonderful tools for collaboration. | |||
| I notice that work has already begun on writing ]. If there is no objection, I will try to implement what I am talking about on that page. The issue I will be using as an example is the organization of our council. What I hope, is that anything of value, that comes from the discussion on this page or elsewhere, be concisely summarized on that page and linked. Rather than have long conversations here, we can collectively write that page. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds good to me. I used to work as an IT project manager and had to use facilitation skills to help the different participants and stakeholders make agreements in order to get the project moving, so I understand what you're saying. ] (]) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Complete agreement from me too. ] (]) 11:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed. --] (]) 11:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Add my support. ] 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This looks very promising.<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Not sure I follow exactly but any way of structuring input for clarity sounds good :) ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sounds a bit like what I was thinking of when I created an experimental "collaborative position statement" (]). Go for it. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Let's try this. ] (]) 22:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==First project proposals== | |||
| I'd like to propose, in line with discussions above, that we take up a first project (other than defining ourselves, which is also important). | |||
| I strongly believe we should choose one small defined issue and scrutinise it before taking on another project, so I propose we formally agree on that. | |||
| If we can agree on that proposal, I have already suggested our first effort is a fresh-eyes look at the deletion policy and I therefore nominate that. | |||
| I've created a pair of subsections to discuss (not vote, thanks) each of these proposals. --] (]) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal #1=== | |||
| '''We should choose one small defined issue and scrutinise it before taking on another project.''' --] (]) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| est, but why not list them below this one? --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> | |||
| Hi all, | |||
| As part of my (bold) attempt to organize and facilitate the organization of our committee (see proposal directly above this one) I have reorganized ], and hope we can direct a good deal of our effort there. We have already mentioned some possible first topics, and I have ]. If we have ideas for other topics they should be added to that list. If we are going to pick an issue, we will need some background on the issue. It seems clear to me that we need to have a preliminary definition of any problem and its history before we can make a reasoned choice. I've listed the next steps we can make in ], and suggested that we create subpages for each of the issues that have been listed. This organization would be helpful in two ways. First, it would keep the discussions about each issue separate and easy to find. Second, it will help us experiment with how to formulate issues and develop our own working process. So we don't have to list the problems below. We already have a working list. It can be extended and subpages created. My big concern here is to make it easy for us, and for the larger community to see the work being done and have a concise starting place. Sorting through long verbiage on talk pages is quite difficult, and as we start working on real issues we need more efficient ways to communicate what is going on. | |||
| I know that is a bold step to be taking on these facilitation responsibilities. I'm hoping that we can collectively facilitate ourselves. Since we don't have any common understanding about how that can be done, It seemed as though a bold step on my part would be beneficial. If anyone thinks I am being too bold, please let me know. Or, just revert or change what I've done, and if need be, we'll discuss it. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 19:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as I'm concerned, go ahead, Sam. --] (] • ]) 20:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::List away - there are some lists in the discussion above. I'm proposing that what we choose be small and self-contained. And that we get on and choose it. --] (]) 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sam, this is wonderful - a breath of fresh air. :) Disorganized discussions drive me batty. ] (]) 22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal #2=== | |||
| '''Our first project should be a fresh-eyes look at the deletion policy.''' --] (]) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :With what aim? Not to say we should have motives, as it were, but what aspects in particular? Whether we delete articles too hastily or let dreck sit about, or something else? --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 13:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :To echo David Fuchs, perhaps you could say more clearly why you think that the deletion policy is a problem that needs some kind of resolution? --] (] • ]) 17:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not convinced the your first proposal is a good idea. But if I were, I would not describe the deletion policy as small or well-defined. To begin to take a fresh look at it would involve collecting huge amounts of information about speedies, prods, AFDs, and Deletion reviews. On speedies we should examine what the rates of dispute are. Find out which types of taggings are nearly always deleted and which most often have the tag removed or deletions overturned. The ones that are not disputed have strong agreement and understanding of the X# criteria given. The X# criteria with more disputes either are misunderstood because the explanation lacks clarity or there is not strong agreement on the reason. We could try and determine this directly, or else more simply recommend some clarifications with idea of reviewing the success of that after a few months. Then we need to do breakdown of Prods and see what kind of reasons are almost always deleted and which are more often disputed. The former should be considered for new speedy criteria depending on whether a bright line can be easily drawn around them. The latter need more research into how such reasons fare at AFD. Then we recommend could how to clarify the prod instructions to better nudge people with truly questionable things to AFD and/or better phrase the reasoning of what truly uncontroversial. Then we need to do some analysis of AFDs. Collect data on what sort of turnout they get as well what is most often disputed by both AFD category as well as a few common reasons. This will hopefully confirm what has strong consensus as well as reveal what parts of the deletion policy could best use a structured RFC to seek a larger consensus beyond those who hang around AFD. After that, if necessary, we might have think about some recommendations for how areas of no consensus should be handled until consensus emerges.<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 17:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Way too vague. I think there are much bigger issues facing the project than the deletion policy anyway. ] 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm pretty sure I know what you're going to suggest, but why not list them below this one? --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| As I mention in my comments above (]), I have already started a list of the issues that have been brought up at ]. I just added "Deletion policies" to the list. Before we can select an issue to work on in depth, we should do some preliminary work on all of them (background history, analysis and a rough definition). Please also see ]. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 19:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Jenna, I think "bigger issues" may be worth avoiding at first - see proposal one. To be frank, I don't really care what we choose, so long as we get on with it, and that it fits with proposal one. --] (]) 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have certainly been concerned about problems here, but I think it is too complicated to start with. ''']''' (]) 04:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal #3=== | |||
| To start off with something bite-sized that we can have a hope of recommending concrete solutions for in a short time. I suggest we look into of the ]. It isn't functioning well (currently backlogged), covers important and often urgent concerns, and solutions that work well here may be adopted to other noticeboards for a widespread impact.<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 13:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::but can we do that in isolation from the other question involving BLP? ''']''' (]) 03:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think so. The noticeboard should mostly contain suspected BLP problems and concerns that are reported by editors who are not confident resolving them alone. It doesn't deal with finding problems that are unreported or some of the other issues related to BLP. But I haven't done any analysis of what is really there. I hoped look at that this past weekend but my hard disk failed on Friday so I am pretty much out of action till I get a new computer.<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 13:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Based on all the above (and below)=== | |||
| Thanks to Sam for taking a sort of head-start charge. There are now multiple subpages on the front that are currently redlinks. If we're going along that route, I suppose the most sensible way forward is for everyone with a vested interest in any particular topic add one or edit what's there, adding information to inform us dummies about what's going on. Then we pick a date to start discussing which one we'd like to tackle first. The rest of the topics can stay for later perusal, edification and possible action. Sound good? That way we can let all the discussion on the other pages trickle down a bit and work on things without all the unnecessary pressures and noise. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 02:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *bump* (yeah I know other people have more important things to do, but whiles' I'm here.) --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 23:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion process proposal== | |||
| I would like to radically reorganize this page. I would like to create a sub-page of this forum for each thread that has started. This page would then just have a directory of the discussions that are just underway, continuing or archived. I've already started ], and I'm contemplating adding summary status reports (a paragraph or two) about what has been happening in each thread. That way, we can scan one page to see what has been happening. | |||
| The talk page of this page would then be used to discuss the layout and operation of this page. | |||
| I'd like us to try and experiment with "Collaborative Position Statements" as Rd232 calls them. Each thread would have two parts, the collaborative part, and the talk page for discussions. It is my hope that we minimize the discussions and focus on collaborative editing. Rather than argue back and forth, we can collaborate on a position statement that presents all sides of an issue in a fair and balanced way. | |||
| Having separate threads will make it easier to maintain archives and links to discussions. This would become a huge problem if this process is ever implemented by the larger community. | |||
| Full disclosure: My main focus for being in this council is to see if it is possible to implement some procedures that stimulate effective large group consensus decision making. So I hope you don't mind if I use all of you as guinea pigs. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> | |||
| :The guinea pigs are not amused :) On a serious note, with the RFC, ArbCom announcement board and then these two pages littered with comments, its rather hard to keep track of everything. Adding subpages to the mix makes that harder. Once we come up with a concrete idea, then moving it to another venue might be good, but right now I'd rather have as many eyeballs on as few locations as possible. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 02:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I too would rather keep it in one place until we have settled on something to work on.''']''' (]) 04:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Current situation== | |||
| Since there are several separate threads on this page, I'm not sure where we currently stand, what we've decided to do or not do. Could someone summarize below what our current, agreed-upon action items are and which proposals we're still deliberating? I want to make sure we keep things moving, no matter how slow or fast. ] (]) 22:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *We've decided to effectively table membership issues and voting for now. We're split as to what method to take to focus on issues, and what issues to address. Sam has reorganized the page and suggested blank spaces and redlinks on the main page where members can start proposals, including backgrounds and information on why it's an issue we should address. I've suggested above that we should let everyone workshop their ideas via the aforementioned method, then pick a rough timeline to decide which one we want to start on. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :All the ] need some preliminary work before we can make a decision on which to focus on. Pick an issue and start a summary. I've sketched out how I think it could look on the one I've started on (]). There are probably many ways to do this, so structure it as you think best. The general idea is to create a summary which presents the problem in a broad, NPOV way that does not presuppose any particular solution. While I'm on the subject, what do people think about opening up the editing of issue pages to the entire community? I'm thinking we can continue to manage and discuss the process here. Perhaps opening it up will positively address some of the community concerns mentioned in the RFC. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 08:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think "opening up the editing of issue pages to the entire community" in a nice idea, but it will result in even more long and convoluted threads that are hard to follow than we have at present. Things need to be kept as concise as possible. ] (]) 09:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::What I'm thinking is that the issue page editing will not be conversations about the issues, but a collaborative process of analyzing and documenting the issue. Perhaps we can lay out some guidelines for issue pages, similar to article guidelines, that they be written in a NPOV way, be cited, and that talk pages are for discussions about writing the issue page, and not for conversations about the issue itself. In other words, the issue page is not for debate, but rather for documenting the issue and the community process. We, as council members, can take it upon ourselves to redact or remove any conversation that does not further the process of writing the issue page. -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 09:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If somebody should be unafraid to "redact or remove any conversation that does not further the process of writing the issue page" I suspect that could lead to more debate still - difficult call this one, anyway I have just realized as a resigned member I should not be here either - so I'll run. ] (]) 09:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You go outside, you come back in. Makes no difference to me if you have something valuable to say. Frankly, I think we've all been putting up with far to much drama and off-topic noise. Can't we decide to not allow it in our new barn? -- ]<b>]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 09:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The situation should never have been permitted to arise. My brain sees things always in a judicial way. The ACPD should have ignored the malice driven RFC and screaming and got straight to work - responding to the RFC was none of their business. '''The founding of the council was legitimate, so the RFC was iligitimate'''. It is not for the mob to interpet the law to suit their personal wants of the moment. In retrospect, the council members should not have attempted to justify and pacify; the Arbcom should have just issued a unanimous statement of support and until the next Arbcom elections,in December, the community should have put up and shut up and been bluntly informed that they elected the Arbcom to make decisions on their behalf. If they did not like it then the December ArbCom elections were the time to make that known. As a result of this, in future, everytime some agitant does not like an ArbCom or wishes to seek revenge through disruption they will launch such an RFC or something similar. Until such time as the Arbcom (or whatever a ruling committee choses to call itself) is seen as strong and independent of any outside forces (the mob or Jimbo) the governance of the project will be poor. It is still not too late for the Arbcom to take this action, but, like all politicians, with their eyes on December, I suspect they will not. This is why the mob can never determine law contrary to the law. ] (]) 10:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| OK, if I understand right, we've decided to use separate sub-pages for each of us to submit proposals or problem statements, which we'll then decide how to address. We're also working on the agenda given to us on the ACPD main page. Perhaps we should also elect a chairperson/facilitator for the council? Is there anyone who is willing to volunteer for the position? ] (]) 11:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think we really need any coordinators, as long as everyone knows the score. I think what might help is if as Sam and I have propose above, everyone just start working on a sort of "brief", akin to a ] publication; accessible and broad focus on the issue, outlining current divisive parts of the issue and the history behind it. Then, list it at ], along with your name next to it so people know you're taking charge (I've added Fiction, myself). These issue pages I think could be developed by one or more interested PD members, who could also seek input from other experienced editors to help build the file. Then after a certain amount of time we present them, allow people to read them at their leisure, and decide on which ones we want to tackle. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 12:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds good to me. ] (]) 12:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I should say that I find myself somewhat unexpectedly out of the country again just now, so will be unable to participate fully, if at all, over the next few weeks. --] (] • ]) 02:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:07, 24 April 2011
 | This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump. |
This page was supposed to be used as a forum for the rejected Advisory Council on Project Development, the text of this page prior to its archiving can be found here.
Category: