Latest revision as of 08:27, 29 April 2008

This proposal was assigned to the Executive Committee, who has accepted it.

This is a reasonably important proposal and should be generally vetted by the community, not just the Executive Committee. Therefore, there must be broad (if not unanimous) support for the proposal before it moves on to the Executive Committee.

Complete explanation

I think we just extend the Approval/Draft system to all CZ pages. They become approved once approved by executive committee members (or by another relevant group nominated by the executive committee), and then a draft is open to revise. I think an approved version should remain editable for minor things without re-approval. But there will be two versions, a formally approved version, and an evolving draft alternative.

Very few of these pages will need to be approved in this way; but some, especially those that express important rules or policy statements, need to have a stable form if they are to be useful. At the same time, the draft page can then become a way of suggesting significant changes, open to anyone, without fear of disrupting established practices. To encourage the rewriting of other important pages for clarity, it may sometimes help to have an extant approved version while an alternative is actively worked up.

Some pages express rules or guidance specific to a formally constituted subgroup of Citizendium (such as workgroups). In such cases, the workgroup itself may approve these pages if they choose to; they should alert the Executive Committee in case of any uncertainty about whose responsibility a particular page is. Ad hoc groups do not have the power to approve until formally recognised as a constituent part of Citizendium.

Proposed Approval process for CZ: pages. A member of the executive committee (or relevant group) places a "ToApprove" template on the article's talk page, and on the Talk page, explains why an approved version is needed or desirable. That template will be marked with a date, usually several days to a week from the date that it is placed.

If the approval template remains there, approval will occur on that date. Meanwhile, discussion and edits continue. Edits at this stage should be made only by executive committee members, involved authors and relevant parties (e.g. constables). Other members of Citizendium should make recommendations and criticisms on the talk page.

At this stage, any other interested body (such as the Editorial Council) may additionally be invited to offer their views, which will be taken into account.

At least one other member of the executive committee (or relevant group) must support approval. If another member of the executive committee (or relevant group) objects to approval, then he or she should explain why on the talk page, and further views sought.

If the nominator notes that the discussion on the talk page that has occurred since the nomination for approval brings up important objections, then he or she may delay the date for approval to allow for work to continue. The nominator may also change the version nominated for approval on the "to approve" template to an updated draft.

Unless the template is removed, on the designated date, a sysop then freezes the approved version of the article under an Approved template. At that freeze, a draft form of the article is generated. This draft is open to edits as are all unapproved articles on the wiki.

After approval, copyediting and minor changes may be performed by any member of the executive committee (or relevant group) with the help of the approvals editor. This may occur at any time.

Who may approve: For any CZ page, only members of the executive committee (or nominated relevant group) may approve.

Reasoning

Below is copied the discussion from an earlier, discarded proposal (See [[CZ:Proposals > CZ Community pages should be revised for simplicity]]), that led to the present proposal.

That proposal was justified thus: "....Part of what is keeping our "elitism shield" up is that many (if not all) of the community pages are overly complex. A campaign to heavily review and edit the pages will give us leaner, easy-to-comprehend documentation and improve our external appearance."

Implementation

As far as I can see this just needs Executive Committee endorsement.

Discussion

See CZ:Proposals/CZ Community pages should be revised for simplicity

I assume that this approval system is only proposed for CZ: pages with rules, and not for pages like CZ:Monthly Write-a-Thon or indeed this page itself. -- Jitse Niesen 13:42, 15 February 2008 (CST)

I can't see us ever wishing to approve any page unless there is a need to maintain a stable version of the page while changes or tried out on a Draft.Gareth Leng 03:57, 16 February 2008 (CST)

This is needed in a very major way, in my mind, just to prevent people from changing policy pages wily-nilly. Stephen Ewen 02:40, 24 February 2008 (CST)

The approving body of a rules page should be the one that is authorized to make changes to the rules documented therein. Content and editor policy pages should be approved by the editorial council and other pages by the executive council. I think something along these lines is worth a try. See this forum thread for an example of the slightly awkward and informal approval process for policy pages currently in place. Warren Schudy 11:37, 24 February 2008 (CST)

I think that this is an excellent suggestion, and will modify the proposal. Rather than list now the pages against relevant bodies, I suggest that the executive committee be free to assign any page to a relevant group.Gareth Leng 03:26, 27 February 2008 (CST)

The proposal is looking good. Why not submit it to the Executive Committee, Gareth? --Larry Sanger 12:20, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Executive Committee evaluation

Looks good to me, as I said. I think it's worth a try. My only worry is that it will slow down the updating process, but slow updating is better than no updating at all (or only by me), which is the problem at present. If this system emboldens people to propose changes, that's all the best.

I think it should be stated explicitly, however, that if anyone significantly changes policy in the course of editing a page, the changes need to be approved by the relevant group(s). --Larry Sanger 07:30, 28 February 2008 (CST)

I think (hope) that the opposite will be true, that with a stable version, editing the draft version will be uninhibited. The approved version will be the official policy until replaced by approval of a new Draft. I suspect also that announcement of proposed Approval will trigger close interest in improvements. Gareth Leng 08:19, 28 February 2008 (CST)

I like having draft and approved versions of policy pages. - Robert Badgett 23:56, 28 February 2008 (CST)

I support the proposal. Pages with key policies should not be edited lightly, but it should be possible to edit them and that does not happen enough at the moment. A clear process for editing these pages will hopefully help. -- Jitse Niesen 09:17, 1 March 2008 (CST)

I like this. It will give us a stable version of policy pages (which is a must) and help people get passed any trepidation about pitching in. One question, though: might it not be better to require that a majority of the Exec. Committee (or at least more than one person) endorse a new approved version before it is accepted? I know that this is why other members of the committee would be given the power to remove a nomination template, but policy should really be endorsed by the committee as a whole and not by a single member of the committee.--Joe Quick 12:22, 4 March 2008 (CST)

I agree that more than one person from the Exec. Committee should endorse a new approved version. Actually, I think this needs to be settled more clearly in the proposal itself. But asking for a majority vote is a bad idea, because it will grind approvals to a halt; that should happen only in case of significant disagreement (say, two people agree and two people disagree). Basically, links to new versions of a page should be posted to the Exec. Committee list, and then if there are two "yeses" and no one balks, it's through--unless it is clear that some other body needs to review policy changes. That is another thing that needs to be added to this proposal: when is it decided, and who decides, that a draft needs to be at least "nodded through" by the another body, such as the Editorial Council? I would like to see these questions answered (added to the proposal) before we consider this approved. --Larry Sanger 12:50, 4 March 2008 (CST)

One other thing is needed to add to the proposal, by the way: a general characterization of what sort of CZ pages need to be approved in this way. All of them? --Larry Sanger 12:52, 4 March 2008 (CST)

Added text in bold to try to meet these points.Gareth Leng 11:37, 6 March 2008 (CST)

I see the support of five members of the Executive Committee and no dissent (assuming I've met Larry's point). Can we consider this approved? If there are no objections by Thursday I'll assume so.Gareth Leng 11:10, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

One last issue, two questions.

(1) If some other "formally constituted subgroup of Citizendium" decides to approve a policy page related to that group, how is it decided who has the power to nominate and approve the page? Workgroups could probably use editors for this function, but maybe they should be electing leaders. In other groups, it might not be quite as easy to decide.

(2) Should a member of the Exec. Committee also support a non-Exec. Committee approval? In my mind, that doesn't need to be anything more than reading through the page and relevant discussion when it has been formalized by the other group and signing off on it. It would just be a matter of formalizing the approval and making sure that it doesn't go wholly unnoticed by the Exec.

--Joe Quick 12:13, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Good points Joe. I wouldn't like to be too prescriptive on (1) at this stage because we might inadvertently be unreasonably restrictive; I'd rather just see how it goes and modify in the light of experience.

On (2) - signing off in some way to ensure attention might be a good thing - maybe we could get the constabulary to ask an Executive Committee member to formally endorse approval. I'd prefer to trust groups on this, but anyone else want to comment? Maybe the constabulary could draw executive attention to anything that looks potentially controversial. Perhaps I'm just being lazy here, but my instincts are to trust the groups that we've endorsed.Gareth Leng 10:40, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

Yes, in general I think it's best to trust the groups we've endorsed. We certainly don't want to create a bottle neck. My worry is that we'll end up with contradictory policies and not even know about it if they don't all go through the same group. The Executive Committee member's job would simply be that of checking to make sure the newly official page fits in (and if it doesn't, suggesting changes either to that page or elsewhere). Perhaps this is a role that would be better filled by the judiciary once it's set up? -Joe Quick 11:19, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

It's a good point. On the other hand, I don't think contradictory policies has arisen yet. Thus, I think it's not necessary to worry about it at the moment; we can always add the rule later on. The other thing is that I don't want us to get too many responsibilities, not only because I'm lazy but also because the way in which people are selected to the Executive Committee is not very democratic. -- Jitse Niesen 09:59, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

That sounds very reasonable. In that case, I'd say the proposal is ready to go. Anyone else have any last questions/issues before we make it official? --Joe Quick 11:02, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only)
Help/policy New proposals List of all proposals Driverless proposals: proposals that lack a champion Discarded proposals: poorly formed proposals Templates: {{Proposal}} \| {{Proposal assignment}} \| {{Proposals navigation}}	Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank): Editorial Council: Active \| Finished \| Declined Approval and Feedback: Active \| Finished \| Declined Eduzendium: Active \| Finished \| Declined Recruitment: Active \| Finished \| Declined Constabulary: Active \| Finished \| Declined Executive: Active \| Finished \| Declined Technical: Active \| Finished \| Declined PR: Active \| Finished \| Declined Ad hoc management: Active \| Finished \| Declined

OK done I think - see CZ: Approval for CZ pages with a small note on the main Approval Process page.Gareth Leng 03:40, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{proposal assignment}}
+This proposal was assigned to the [[CZ:Executive Committee|Executive Committee]], who has accepted it.
+This is a reasonably important proposal and should be generally vetted by the community, not just the Executive Committee.  Therefore, there must be broad (if not unanimous) support for the proposal before it moves on to the Executive Committee.
 == Complete explanation ==
-I think it's simple, we just extend the Approval/Draft system to all CZ pages. They become approved once approved by executive committee members, and then a draft is open to revise. I think an approved version should remain editable for minor things without re-approval. But there will be two versions, a formally approved version, and an evolving draft alternative.
+I think we just extend the Approval/Draft system to all CZ pages. They become approved once approved by executive committee members (or by another relevant group nominated by the executive committee), and then a draft is open to revise. I think an approved version should remain editable for minor things without re-approval. But there will be two versions, a formally approved version, and an evolving draft alternative.
+'''Very few of these pages will need to be approved in this way; but some, especially those that express important rules or policy statements, need to have a stable form if they are to be useful. At the same time, the draft page can then become a way of suggesting significant changes, open to anyone, without fear of disrupting established practices. To encourage the rewriting of other important pages for clarity, it may sometimes help to have an extant approved version while an alternative is actively worked up.'''
+'''Some pages express rules or guidance specific to a formally constituted subgroup of Citizendium (such as workgroups). In such cases, the workgroup itself may approve these pages if they choose to; they should alert the Executive Committee in case of any uncertainty about whose responsibility a particular page is. ''Ad hoc'' groups do not have the power to approve until formally recognised as a constituent part of Citizendium.
+Proposed Approval process for CZ: pages.
+A member of the executive committee (or relevant group) places a "ToApprove" template on the article's talk page, '''and on the Talk page, explains why an approved version is needed or desirable'''. That template will be marked with a date, usually several days to a week from the date that it is placed.
-Approval process for CZ: pages.
+If the approval template remains there, approval will occur on that date. Meanwhile, discussion and edits continue. Edits at this stage should be made only by executive committee members, involved authors and relevant parties (e.g. constables). Other members of Citizendium should make recommendations and criticisms on the talk page.
-A member of the executive committee places a {{ToApprove}} template on the article's talk (discussion) page. That template will be marked with a date, usually several days to a week from the date that it is placed - but at least 24 hours.
-This template acts as an announcement -- if the approval template remains there, approval will occur on that date. Meanwhile, discussion and edits continue on the article. When an article is nominated for approval, this status often draws new eyes to the article, and it can be expected that revisions will occur. In the culture of Citizendium, edits at this stage by novices to the subject are discouraged. The important role for non-experts is to make recommendations and criticisms on the talk page.
+'''At this stage, any other interested body (such as the Editorial Council) may additionally be invited to offer their views, which will be taken into account.
-If another member of the executive committee finds that the article is so objectionable that approval, in his considered opinion, should not be granted, then the template is removed by this member, who puts his reasons for this action on the talk page.
+'''At least one other member of the executive committee (or relevant group) must support approval.''' If another member of the executive committee (or relevant group) objects to approval, then he or she should explain why on the talk page, and further views sought.
-If the nominator notes that the discussion on the talk page that has occurred since the nomination for approval brings up important objections, then he or she may delay the date for approval on the "to approve" template,to allow for work to continue before the stable version is generated. The nominator may also change the version nominated for approval on the "to approve" template to an updated draft that is considered superior to the one first nominated.
+If the nominator notes that the discussion on the talk page that has occurred since the nomination for approval brings up important objections, then he or she may delay the date for approval to allow for work to continue. The nominator may also change the version nominated for approval on the "to approve" template to an updated draft.
-Unless the template is removed, on the designated date, a sysop (a person with "sysop" administrative rights on the wiki) then freezes the approved version of the article on the main article page under an {{Approved}} template. At that freeze, a draft form of the article is generated. This draft is not frozen, but is open to edits as are all unapproved articles on the wiki.
+Unless the template is removed, on the designated date, a sysop then freezes the approved version of the article under an Approved template. At that freeze, a draft form of the article is generated. This draft is open to edits as are all unapproved articles on the wiki.
-Addendum: after approval, copyediting and minor changes may be performed by any member of the executive committee with the help of the approvals editor. This may occur at any time.
+After approval, copyediting and minor changes may be performed by any member of the executive committee (or relevant group) with the help of the approvals editor. This may occur at any time.
-Who may approve [edit]
+Who may approve:
-For any CZ page, only members of the executive committee may approve.
+For any CZ page, only members of the executive committee (or nominated relevant group) may approve.
 == Reasoning ==
-see below
+Below is copied the discussion from an earlier, discarded proposal (See [[CZ:Proposals > CZ Community pages should be revised for simplicity]]), that led to the present proposal.
+'''That''' proposal was justified thus:
+''"....Part of what is keeping our "elitism shield" up is that many (if not all) of the community pages are overly complex.  A campaign to heavily review and edit the pages will give us leaner, easy-to-comprehend documentation and improve our external appearance."''
 == Implementation ==
@@ Line 28: / Line 40: @@
 = Discussion =
-Below is copied the discussion from an earlier, discarded proposal, that led to the present proposal.
+See [[CZ:Proposals/CZ Community pages should be revised for simplicity]]
-'''That''' proposal was justified thus:
+I assume that this approval system is only proposed for CZ: pages with rules, and not for pages like [[CZ:Monthly Write-a-Thon]] or indeed this page itself. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 13:42, 15 February 2008 (CST)
-''"....Part of what is keeping our "elitism shield" up is that many (if not all) of the community pages are overly complex.  A campaign to heavily review and edit the pages will give us leaner, easy-to-comprehend documentation and improve our external appearance."''
+:I can't see us ever wishing to approve any page unless there is a need to maintain a stable version of the page while changes or tried out on a Draft.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:57, 16 February 2008 (CST)
+This is needed in a very major way, in my mind, just to prevent people from changing policy pages wily-nilly. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:40, 24 February 2008 (CST)
+The approving body of a rules page should be the one that is authorized to make changes to the rules documented therein. Content and editor policy pages should be approved by the editorial council and other pages by the executive council. I think something along these lines is worth a try. See [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1563 this forum thread] for an example of the slightly awkward and informal approval process for policy pages currently in place. [[User:Warren Schudy|Warren Schudy]] 11:37, 24 February 2008 (CST)
+: I think that this is an excellent suggestion, and will modify the proposal. Rather than list now the pages against relevant bodies, I suggest that the executive committee be free to assign any page to a relevant group.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:26, 27 February 2008 (CST)
-It led to the following discussion:
+The proposal is looking good.  Why not submit it to the Executive Committee, Gareth? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:20, 27 February 2008 (CST)
-I have two reactions to this.  (1) The summary and process above don't constitute a complete proposal.  Everyone recognizes the need to improve our community pages.  I plug away regularly at them, and I am constantly begging people to help with them.  The problem, quite obviously, is not that we needed a "proposal" to tell us we need to improve our community pages.  The problem is how to motivate people to actually work on them.  If you had a proposal to address that effectively, well, that would be interesting.  (2) The fact that there is no driver for your proposal I take as further evidence that this is a problem. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:49, 12 February 2008 (CST)
+== Executive Committee evaluation ==
+Looks good to me, as I said.  I think it's worth a try.  My only worry is that it will slow down the updating process, but slow updating is better than no updating at all (or only by me), which is the problem at present.  If this system emboldens people to propose changes, that's all the best.
-Let's go straight to very specific proposals. e.g.
+I think it should be stated explicitly, however, that if anyone ''significantly changes policy'' in the course of editing a page, the changes need to be approved by the relevant group(s). --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:30, 28 February 2008 (CST)
-) To replace  [[CZ: Article Mechanics]] with [[CZ:Article_Mechanics/Draft_rewrite]].
+: I think (hope) that the opposite will be true, that with a stable version, editing the draft version will be uninhibited. The approved version will be the official policy until replaced by approval of a new Draft. I suspect also that announcement of proposed Approval will trigger close interest in improvements. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 08:19, 28 February 2008 (CST)
-. To replace [[CZ:Neutrality Policy]] with [[CZ:Neutrality process new draft]]
+::I like having draft and approved versions of policy pages. - [[User:Robert Badgett|Robert Badgett]] 23:56, 28 February 2008 (CST)
-How do we decide to do this or not? What exactly is the mechanism.
+I support the proposal. Pages with key policies should not be edited lightly, but it should be possible to edit them and that does not happen enough at the moment. A clear process for editing these pages will hopefully help. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 09:17, 1 March 2008 (CST)
-[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 04:00, 13 February 2008 (CST)
-Exactly my question.  That is, if no one wants to answer that question, or any other such specific questions about how to revise community pages for simplicity, then this proposal won't (can't!) be implemented.  Right now, the only mechanisms are: someone makes the change and sees if it sticks; or I do it.
+I like this.  It will give us a stable version of policy pages (which is a must) and help people get passed any trepidation about pitching in. One question, though: might it not be better to require that a majority of the Exec. Committee (or at least more than one person) endorse a new approved version before it is accepted? I know that this is why other members of the committee would be given the power to remove a nomination template, but policy should really be endorsed by the committee as a whole and not by a single member of the committee.--[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 12:22, 4 March 2008 (CST)
-However, I don't think we should ''entirely replace'' the former with the latter.  I think we should put the latter (or versions of the latter) first, and then direct readers to the former (or versions of the former) for fuller versions of our policy.  That is particularly important for Article Mechanics. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:22, 13 February 2008 (CST)
+I agree that more than one person from the Exec. Committee should endorse a new approved version.  Actually, I think this needs to be settled more clearly in the proposal itself.  But asking for a majority vote is a bad idea, because it will grind approvals to a halt; that should happen only in case of significant disagreement (say, two people agree and two people disagree).  Basically, links to new versions of a page should be posted to the Exec. Committee list, and then if there are two "yeses" and no one balks, it's through--''unless'' it is clear that some other body needs to review policy changes.  That is another thing that needs to be added to this proposal: when is it decided, and who decides, that a draft needs to be at least "nodded through" by the another body, such as the Editorial Council?  I would like to see these questions answered (added to the proposal) before we consider this approved. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:50, 4 March 2008 (CST)
-:Let me restate my concern.  I think part of the reason why there isn't much effort is because there is a worry that "the changes won't be right" or "they're incorrect".  There is an implied, non-verbal restriction on editing these pages.  I certainly respect that this is your project, but despite the encouragement no one wants to "rock the boat"--I may be mistaken, but I think I am not.  Only a response from the community will verify this hypothesis.  --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:11, 13 February 2008 (CST)
-Its been aired on the forums, and I really doubt if there's anyone who doesn't think that these should be revised, or that comment shouldn't be encouraged. It's not clear how a form of words should become "Approved". Maybe the answer is to take a draft revision, work on that collectively, and submit it to an approval process. But approved by whom and how? And are we in danger of talking ourselves to death? Anyway, I've proposed simplified alternatives, and maybe people should feel less intimidated from improving these.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:02, 13 February 2008 (CST)
+One other thing is needed to add to the proposal, by the way: a general characterization of ''what sort'' of CZ pages need to be approved in this way.  ''All'' of them? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:52, 4 March 2008 (CST)
-Gareth, excellent questions.  I think the problem isn't so much approval as actually doing the work, however.  Why do I say that?  Because it would take me weeks worth of full-time work to do all that I personally want to do on the pages, and I know already that almost everything I write will be accepted.  :-)  As long as ''policies'' aren't substantively changed, but merely rewritten, there's nothing that needs approval from the Editorial Council.  Then it's just like any other page on the wiki: you do a lot of work, and in case of disagreement, you negotiate to a mutually agreeable solution.
-Robert, again--please read this carefully if you want to keep debating this, as I don't have time to keep repeating myself--we all agree that the community pages need a huge overhaul in various respects.  That's what the community gets for leaving all the work to me.  It appears to be a frustratingly bad misperception that the community pages are somehow "off limits."  They aren't.  There are some pages that should only be edited carefully, perhaps with advance discussion, but the vast majority of the pages aren't of that sort.
+Added text in bold to try to meet these points.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:37, 6 March 2008 (CST)
-I think what you are reacting to is that I respond to and sometimes criticize changes that others make community pages, such as Steve's recent move to change [[CZ:About]] to a Q&A format; I responded (on [[CZ talk:About]]) that I thought it should not be in Q&A form, because we've got a FAQ for that.  People shouldn't be put off by perfectly innocent, non-hostile remarks like that; I don't know why they are, but it appears they are.  Sorry, but I can't give you only praise when I see actual problems.
+I see the support of five members of the Executive Committee and no dissent (assuming I've met Larry's point). Can we consider this approved? If there are no objections by Thursday I'll assume so.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:10, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
-On the other hand, I can see how someone might not want to do any work at all simply because they think I'll undo their work (as in fact I've threatened to do with Steve's Q&A version of our about page).  That is no doubt a problem for some people (but I think most people are just lazy and would rather leave this difficult work to others :-) ).
+:One last issue, two questions.
-Now, I can think of three solutions.  (There must be others.)  One is select a committed person(s) who will really take the lead in rewriting the pages; but it couldn't be just anybody, it would have to be a really good writer.  If I were satisfied that a person really is a good writer for these sorts of pages, I'd be happy to just step back and let that/those person(s) go to work, resting content to comment just now and then (if you don't mind).
+:'''(1)''' If some other "formally constituted subgroup of Citizendium" decides to approve a policy page related to that group, how is it decided who has the power to nominate and approve the page?  Workgroups could probably use editors for this function, but maybe they should be electing leaders.  In other groups, it might not be quite as easy to decide.
-A second partial solution is Gareth's, but Gareth's solution doesn't really solve the big problem.  The big problem (as I can tell you from spending probably over 100 hours trying to solve it) is beautifully coordinating all the pages, and just rewriting a few of them piecemeal is nice, but just one small part of a much bigger puzzle.
+:'''(2)''' Should a member of the Exec. Committee also support a non-Exec. Committee approval?  In my mind, that doesn't need to be anything more than reading through the page and relevant discussion when it has been formalized by the other group and signing off on it.  It would just be a matter of formalizing the approval and making sure that it doesn't go wholly unnoticed by the Exec.
+:--[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 12:13, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
-A third solution is for the community to tell me: Larry, give us all a few months to completely rewrite the pages; for whatever reason, we can't work with you making comments and giving advice.  So, you are disallowed from making comments and giving advice, because frankly you scare us.  Have a little faith, and we'll all get it right.  Then, after we're done, you can edit our work.  That sounds pretty appealing to me, but there is a very big problem with it.  It is that, as I said, I think most people don't want to work on the community pages because that's actually really hard work (I ought to know), and most people just don't want to do it.  So only a few people would end up doing any work.  And, as a result, the only difference between solutions one and three is: the people who would be doing the work without my input would be self-selected.  I don't like that idea, frankly, because there are some people who just aren't as good at writing as they think they are, and they don't understand CZ policy as well as they think they do...
-Now, don't get me wrong.  Even those people are, even now, perfectly free to edit (e.g.) the FAQ, the Editor's Role page, etc.  I'm comfortable with that because at present I can correct mistakes on the fly.  But if I'm disallowed from correcting mistakes, well, that makes me uncomfortable.  It seems to me that if any person should be disallowed to correct mistakes, it shouldn't be the Editor-in-Chief.  ;-)  At least, not if there is no other way to find and correct mistakes.
+Good points Joe. I wouldn't like to be too prescriptive on (1) at this stage because we might inadvertently be unreasonably restrictive; I'd rather just see how it goes and modify in the light of experience.
-Anyway, I am still not seeing any actual proposal, and we're using this proposal page for discussion, however useful and interesting.  So, as Proposals Manager ''pro tempore,'' and in view of the fact that the proposal has no driver and no next step, I am going to move the proposal record to [[CZ:Proposals/Discarded]].  Robert, or Gareth, if you can think of an actual proposal about ''how'' to improve our community pages (it wouldn't have to be a solution to Big Problem identified above), please lay it on us!  I'll bet there's a great idea lurking about here. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:53, 13 February 2008 (CST)
+On (2) - signing off in some way to ensure attention might be a good thing - maybe we could get the constabulary to ask an Executive Committee member to formally endorse approval. I'd prefer to trust groups on this, but anyone else want to comment? Maybe the constabulary could draw executive attention to anything that looks potentially controversial. Perhaps I'm just being lazy here, but my instincts are to trust the groups that we've endorsed.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:40, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
+:Yes, in general I think it's best to trust the groups we've endorsed.  We certainly don't want to create a bottle neck.  My worry is that we'll end up with contradictory policies and not even know about it if they don't all go through the same group.  The Executive Committee member's job would simply be that of checking to make sure the newly official page fits in (and if it doesn't, suggesting changes either to that page or elsewhere).  Perhaps this is a role that would be better filled by the judiciary once it's set up? -[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 11:19, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
+::It's a good point. On the other hand, I don't think contradictory policies has arisen yet. Thus, I think it's not necessary to worry about it at the moment; we can always add the rule later on. The other thing is that I don't want us to get too many responsibilities, not only because I'm lazy but also because the way in which people are selected to the Executive Committee is not very democratic. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 09:59, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
+:::That sounds very reasonable.  In that case, I'd say the proposal is ready to go.  Anyone else have any last questions/issues before we make it official? --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 11:02, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
 {{Proposals navigation}}
+::: OK done I think - see [[CZ: Approval for CZ pages]] with a small note on the main Approval Process page.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:40, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

CZ:Proposals/Approval system for CZ: pages: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 08:27, 29 April 2008

Contents

Complete explanation

Reasoning

Implementation

Discussion

Executive Committee evaluation

Navigation menu

CZ:Proposals/Approval system for CZ: pages: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 08:27, 29 April 2008

Complete explanation

Reasoning

Implementation

Discussion

Executive Committee evaluation

Navigation menu

Search