CZ Talk:Proposals/New

Proposal queue discussions

This is in response to the conversation Robert and Larry are having at the bottom of the queue page, I just wanted to get it off that page so it can be cleaned up. I think Robert is on the right track - perhaps add a link to the bottom of each proposal template that will send the reader to a discussion/talk page centered around it. I do not think that this will imply that formal decisions are made on this page, as long as it is clearly stated on the guidelines page the procedure for taking a proposal that is accepted through this mechanism and getting it forwarded to the Editorial Council or some other decision making entity.

Also, if this sort of system is going to succeed, there need to be some guidelines on how it is determine a proposal is worthy of approval. Do X amount of citizens need to come out in support of it? or a ratio of Yay:Nay votes? Would there be some kind of mediator? My concern would be, that like in many other places, the proposal will get discussed endlessly, with no result, lay dormant for a few months, and then be resurrected only to have the same thing happen over, and over again (such as the naming of history articles). --Todd Coles 16:14, 9 February 2008 (CST)

I do agree in many ways. I think the idea was to have one central place where members could post proposals and have a proper chit chat about it. I'd strongly be against the introduction of voting on these proposals; Allow the Editorial Council to make the structural changes, as they are needed from time to time. Voting on things brings out the worst aspects of Wikipedia; It starts off as canvassing, then develops into popularity contests and eventually ends as an ego trip. Denis Cavanagh 16:18, 9 February 2008 (CST)

What if the Editorial Council stalls and stalls with discussion and no outcome? --Robert W King 16:20, 9 February 2008 (CST)

I'm a huge fan of the silent vote, but I probably have no say in how the outcome will judged. --Robert W King 16:19, 9 February 2008 (CST)

The same problem exists for the mob aspect. The Editorial Council allows a smaller number of people come up with a more workable solution. P.S- Is there any more talk on reforming the kind of people who are allowed to be in it? IE, more authors etc.? Denis Cavanagh 16:25, 9 February 2008 (CST)