Forum:CT:EduCorps quota

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:EduCorps quota
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal. Imperators II(Talk) 07:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This CT proposes the creation of an "EduCorps review quota," similar to the ones followed by the AgriCorps and the Inquisitorius. Currently, the ECs who are not also ACs or INQs could potentially stop reviewing for months without being on {{Vacation}}, and they would get no strikes. I believe that it would be useful to have a small review quota for them to respect, which would consist of three reviews every two weeks. The ACs currently should review two GANs every two weeks, so it would make sense to make it slightly more for ECs since CANs are usually much shorter.

The proposed addition to the EduCorps Bylaws page is the following: 

==Review quota==
It is the expectation that every EduCorps member who is not part of the [[Wookieepedia:AgriCorps|AgriCorps]] or [[Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius|Inquisitorius]] to review at least three Comprehensive article nominations every two weeks. A review is defined as either 1) a support vote or 2) at least one new objection. EduCorps members are exempt from this quota only if they have the {{Tl|Vacation}} tag on their userpage. Failure to meet this quota will result in a strike given to the offending EduCorps member.

==Current strikes==

Support

  1. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 10:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Fan26 (Talk) 10:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 10:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 10:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. 01miki10 Open comlink 11:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  6. —spookywillowwtalk 12:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  7. Rsand 30 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  8. Lewisr (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  9. Oh alright :P OOM 224 (he/him) 17:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  10. Makes sense to me VergenceScatter (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  11. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 17:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  12. oh lord i'm gonna finally have to get around to writing logic for this aren't I Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 18:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  13. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 18:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  14. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  15. BloodOfIriziSabine Starbird(Syndicure) 22:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  16. yes Cade dewit JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 05:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  17. I can't see any reason why the EC should not have quotas when the AC and Inq do. If someone is not capable of following through with the expectations of the role, it is perfectly reasonable to not have them in the role. People get busy for many different reasons, and that's ok. There is no reviewing expectation to be a Wookieepedian. There are reviewing expectations to be in a review board. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 01:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Honestly we should be moving away from quotas not towards quotas. Life is busy and gets busier. I'm not sure how widespread it is but in Australia, our discrimination laws cover marital status and career responsibilities. These quotas, forcing people to wook, is a form of indiect systemic discrimination that pushes people with family commitments away from these positions. I had thought we were moving away from this given the increased number of review board members and interest, and it is disappointing to see this change. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 22:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Blocked user -- Imperators II(Talk) 16:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC))

  • That's an unfair accusation, Manoof. This is absolutely not discrimination. No one is forced to be a review board member or for that matter, a Wookieepedian. It is a voluntary role. As I have expressed in the past, I don't like having quotas on the premise that I think anyone who's got the skills should have their vote given more weight than regular users, and so anyone who's qualified should be able to be a board member. However, as others have raised as a counter-argument, quotas encourage review board members to put in the time and effort expected of them, and that there is a general consensus amongst board members at the time who agree that their role should come with actively carrying out review-related duties. To say that introducing quotas to the EC (it has already been established in the AC and Inq) is discriminatory is frankly disappointing of you. OOM 224 (he/him) 22:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    • I came to this realisation that being a review board member was, to a degree, incompatible with having a family and other similar life commitments, and that was why I hadn't pursued AC or Inq - because the quota requirements would mean I could not hold that status for an extended period. I said that this is indirect descrimination which is true, since introducing the rules is a deterrent and obstacle for individuals in these situations, like myself, without directly impacting them. It is indeed not direct discrimination. Being a review panel is something people want to do, and the various duties associated with that role come with that. We all WANT to edit and improve the wook, otherwise none of us would be here. Being a member of the review boards helps that goal, nominations pass quicker and ensuring those articles stay at a high quality, removing that SA status if they drop in quality or don't get updated. Nobody should be forced to resign because they can't meet the quotas then reapply at a later time when they can, to me this adds unnecessary bureaucracy and prevents those people from taking review board action in quiet moments through that period. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 00:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Hm, while I still don't think the criteria for being a board member is unfair, I can see what you mean about wanting to be a part of the boards as a way to help the Wook in the status article area. Maybe we could use a new board that's largely a list of editors deemed to have the skill of an EC but aren't part of the group; give them the voting weight of two non-board users. Brainstorming stuff for y'all @EduCorps :P OOM 224 (he/him) 10:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • For the record and context, I should clarify that I am no longer a review board member; I had decided to resign in early March and officially left on the 27th as I no longer have the time to be active on the boards while juggling my offline life and admin duties. OOM 224 (he/him) 22:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I would also like to point out that the proposed rule says " EduCorps members are exempt from this quota only if they have the {{Tl|Vacation}} tag on their userpage." so it does allow for busy schedules because IRL committments obviously do come first. And ultimately, if someone's other committments make them unable to perform the tasks for which the review boards exist to do and the board members are expected to perform, then they should be able to recognise that they cannot perfomr the duty of a review board member. Fan26 (Talk) 22:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Ah yes this is a great loophole, we can just add the vacation tag and edit when we can! Can't be kicked off the review board if you never remove the template! ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 00:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
      • To be clear this isn't snide or sarcasm or anything, I genuinely think it's a great idea, and if I'd thought of this I would've gone for AC/INQ! ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 11:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Discuss