FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus: Difference between revisions

:These are great points, Alan Here are some comments:  

:I disagree with #2. Having to reach consensus to agree on whether a guideline is even needed seems like having a meeting to plan a meeting. Seems overly bureaucratic. Instead, I think the litmus test for whether a guideline is needed is A) whether anyone joins in the discussion and B) whether some join in by saying "It's silly that we're talking about making rules about this issue."  

:Regarding #3 and 5, I believe in Wikipedia there is no end of a congressional session, as it were. In other words, I don't think there is a time limit between when a user opens discussion on an issue and when it must be voted on. In fact, Wikipedia lets users put their own time limits on issues, ostensibly so that if a user is concerned enough about an issue to raise it, that usually means he is relying on a timely decision so he can go forward with a project.  

:Regarding #4, I think the original proposer will have the vested interest to post the consensus decision on the appropriate page.

:#8 feels litigious. If we want a policy changed or deleted, why not just add an argument to the discussion page?