Forum:CT:Nomination pass periods

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) 11:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Hi everyone,

I have raised this amongst the Educorp (and thus the other inferior review boards lol) and have worked through some feedback and feel this is time for a vote given the general consensus we seem to have. The proposal is straightforward: Update the voting requirements for a successful nomination to expand existing rules for each nomination to pass at 7+ days to also include the 3-6 day period. This reduces all nominations to a simpler two-period rule: 2 days where nominations cannot pass followed by an essentially unlimited period from 3 days where the nomination can pass.

A couple reasons:

• The current 3-day rule can be a hindrance to articles submitted with a high quality, preventing their passing
• The rules between the current 3-6 and 7+ periods requiring additional votes do not improve the article review process, with no significant reduction in error detection (I don't have data just gut feel ruh-roh)
• This is a step towards simplifying the process, making it easier to understand and allow newer users to engage in the process should they wish to
• While this won't significantly impact the GAN or FAN process, due to the average pass times for those nominations, there will be an improvement in the CAN stream, which is not currently delayed due to increased EC membership and user reviews. This is anticipated to occur without significant impact to EC "workload" given the aforementioned membership number and increased user reviews.
• I won't keep trying to pass articles without the extra EC votes prematurely (most important 😉)

A Support consensus will result in:

• FANs passing after 2 days with votes from either 5 INQ, 4 INQ + 2 users, or 3 INQ + 4 users
• GANs passing after 2 days with votes from either 4 AC/INQ votes with 3 of those being AC or 3 AC/INQ votes with 2 of those being AC + 2 users
• CANs passing after 2 days with votes from either 3 EC or 2 EC + 3 users

Support

1. Manoof (he/him/his) 12:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Imperators II^(Talk) 12:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
3. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 13:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Samonic ^(Talk) 13:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
6. Hope this doesn't get exploited in some way. UberSoldat93 (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
7. OOM 224 14:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
8. Dropbearemma (she/her) 14:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
9. ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
10. BloodOfIrizi (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
11. HeadSpikesWalls (she/they) (talk!) 17:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
12. LucaRoR ^(Talk) 17:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
13. —spookywilloww^talk 19:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
14. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 02:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
15. Rsand 30 (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
16. I like your funny words, magic man! - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
17. Commander Code-8 ^{Hello There!} 05:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• I haven't had a discussion yet (or can't remember the outcome) but will be looking at that messy GAN AC/INQ stuff next Manoof (he/him/his) 12:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • That's what we call the SE rule :P since he's the only remaining Inq not on the AC, which used to be more commonplace. All it really means is that GANs weren't able to pass with three Inqvotes, which doesn't apply now since the maximum of one Inq vote can only be SE. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 02:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think we just demote him, that'll solve the problem lol Manoof (he/him/his) 02:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)