FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus: Difference between revisions

FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus (view source)

Revision as of 08:15, 10 June 2009

8 bytes removed , 10 June 2009

fixed formatting

VisualWikitext

RitcheyMT

4,497

edits

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 #A policy for proposing changes to or deletion of guidelines.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 :Sorry, no solutions proposed, just more problems stated.[[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
+:These are great points, Alan Here are some comments:
-::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&nbsp;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.
-::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&nbsp;that we're talking about making rules about this issue."
+: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&nbsp;argument to the discussion page?
-::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.
+:[[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
-::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&nbsp;argument to the discussion page?
-::[[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 == Governing body needed  ==