Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Procedural proposal
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 Adopt procedural proposal. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:09, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
Good day, everyone. I offer a proposal regarding a procedural activity for Consensus Track and Trash Compactor vote. Simply put, it prevents a proposal or topical vote from being changed once voting opens without the consent of those who have already cased votes. In other words, ideas or changes to a proposal cannot be simply tacked on to a proposal once votes have already been cast by users. The exact language is as follows:
Once a proposal is offered in Consensus Track and Trash Compactor forums, it must remain unchanged following the commencement of voting unless:
- All users who have cast votes prior to the desired change to be included are directly contacted, or the alteration to the vote is rendered invalid; or…
- Individual amendments are drafted to alter to the topical vote, but must pass separately within the same CT or TC page and adhere to rules of consensus.
Exceptions to this include slight tweaks to wording or punctuation that do not alter the intended approved meaning of the vote but are done for clarity when incorporating them onto policy pages.
I submit this as a vote to support good-faith changes without taking for granted the users who cast votes prior to alterations in a proposal. I also hope this clarifies TC and CT procedure, so that we can keep things moving speedily by not belaboring petty discussions about whether or not something is acceptable. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:59, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
Please keep this an up or down vote, and refrain from wiki-lawyering in the voting area.
EDIT: This is intended to be an addition to Wookieepedia:Consensus. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 22:10, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
Voting
Approve procedural proposal
- As nominator. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:59, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:08, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Imperialles 22:11, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- With the recent changes, too. --Imperialles 20:17, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:12, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:13, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Graestan(Talk) 22:13, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- —Tommy 9281 22:16, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 22:39, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 23:36, May 19, 2010 (UTC) - Grunny (talk) 08:18, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. -- 1358 (Talk) 15:32, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Xicer9
(Combadge) 16:30, May 20, 2010 (UTC) - JangFett (Talk) 16:38, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Following changes. —fodigg
(talk) | 20:02, May 21, 2010 (UTC) - Now it's got my vote. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 20:16, May 21, 2010 (UTC) - Under the assumption that any outrageous changes will automatically be reverted. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 10:29, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Reject procedural proposal
Weak oppose. Basically, we'll be having mini-CTs so we can add a new option. That sounds a little too bureaucratic. Now, under our current system, given support from enough users, we can simply add an option on. Other users can then strike their old votes and move to the new option. With this new policy, what I see happening is a long and painstaking vote to add a new option, followed by exactly what we currently do anyway—people strike and move their votes. At the end of the day, this shouldn't change the total number of votes for the new option, and the final result for the CT, should, at least in theory, remain the same. However, I do support using this policy when altering an existing option which has votes. Another thing I would be happy to support is a period of time where the issue can be discussed and options can be added, but no votes are taken until the period expires (similar to that proposal for a WOTM nomination grace period. Either, or both together, is a much more acceptable idea to me. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 03:28, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, I really don't care. But to vote in new proposals in order to add another option to an existing proposal seems needlessly complicated. Trak Nar Ramble on 03:32, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Gotta come down on the side of free discourse on this one. ~ SavageBob 16:52, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Not as it's currently worded. See comments below. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 17:01, May 21, 2010 (UTC)Voting reject as-worded, but would accept the proposal if you only had to inform each voter of the change.—fodigg (talk) | 19:16, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Discourse
Is this intended to be an amendment to Wookieepedia:Consensus? If so, please state so in the proposal. --Imperialles 22:02, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I have updated it above and will be contacting Chack momentarily. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 22:10, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- I received your message and approve. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:15, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Can I add in a third voting option? ;) --Eyrezer 22:20, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
- I have a question: might it then be appropriate to provide a day-or-two period after the proposal is made, but before voting can commence? That would give people who have legitimately good voting options to propose them before having to chase down 20 people to ask permission to add a new voting option? Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 16:53, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. I would support a 24- or 48-hour waiting period after a CT goes up before voting begins to allow for tweaks (such as the "oops, missed that" variety so aptly illustrated above). This, of course, wouldn't be necessary if the proposal was discussed and fine-tuned in the SH before, as the kinks should already be worked out in that case. —Master Jonathan (Jedi Council Chambers) 17:27, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that should be a requirement. Perhaps a recommendation in the instances that a CT can safely anticipate some debate and discussion, in which case it would probably alternatively be recommended that the proposer of the CT not instantly begin a vote right off the bat to actually allow for discussion to take place first. But there are enough instances of straightforward CT proposals that this would prove to be a burdensome waste of time if made mandatory. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:39, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Toprawa, here. It is always best to hash things out with some people beforehand. I even asked about this and the language of this proposal before offering it. The SH is a great place to do that, but there should not be a requirement. Plus, in my haste, I accidentally deleted something I had intended to include. While accidents like that occur, I should have done a better job proof-reading. Plus, if a legitimate option arises, I highly doubt, based upon the history of other things, that such a large number of people would need to be contacted at that point. Should it get to that, simply retract the nomination and redraft it with the other things built in. There is nothing wrong with that. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:20, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I'd support this if it included the "waiting period" before voting, simply because it would be a major hassle for someone to have to track down a bunch of people to get their approval. How about this as an alternative? To alter the proposal requires discussing with and getting the approval from the individual who began the vote/CT/etc and then must simply inform anyone else who has voted on their talk pages. That way they are informed of the change and can alter their vote if desired. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 03:51, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fair middle-ground. It informs everybody, but you're not stuck waiting for them to reply (they may be away, they may not care, but it means they don't need to constantly check the CT in case of a new voting option). Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 13:50, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- I would also suggest, rather than the waiting period of acceptable changes, that there's a waiting period before a CT could be considered "complete" after a change was made. So a person would make a CT, some people voted, but then you need to change the proposal so you make the change and post a notification on everybody's talk page who voted, and then the CT must remain open for at least a week after notifications go out to allow people to alter their vote. —fodigg (talk) | 19:16, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- If you do not like the proposal, you are welcome to that opinion. Keep in mind, however, that there are two options outlined and that another amendment being voted upon is only one of the two options. If someone wants to make a change, all that is being said is that any previous voter must be told on their talk page that a change has been made so that they can update their vote one way or the other. The consequence for not doing that is nullification of the alteration. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:25, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding from the proposal as worded is that you must notify previous voters and get a reply back. —fodigg (talk) | 19:28, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. That is true, in order for their vote to be counted toward that proposal. It basically gives people fair warning that something has been changed so that should something need to be changed, it can. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:30, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- That's the problem. That they must have expressed either their approval or rejection of said change by commenting under their vote, or the alteration to the vote is rendered invalid. What if someone votes, then goes on vacation? They aren't going to be around to express their approval or rejection of an amendment. All that should be required is for the nominator of the original CT/Vote/etc to give approval. Everyone else should be notified via their talk page. Their response should not be required. Once they are notified, it is up to them to change/keep their vote and/or discuss the alteration in the discussion area. The validity of the amendment shouldn't hinge on everyone's response. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 19:42, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll relent as I'd rather a majority-case protection be in place than disenfranchise a sporadic user by potentially disqualifying their votes. Still, if someone does go on vacation or leaves for an extended period of time we do have the ethical dilemma of counting their vote if they have not logged in to see the message. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:53, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Which was why I was suggesting a week waiting period following any such notification to give them at least that long to log in. —fodigg (talk) | 19:54, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- I understand, Fodigg, but this should be proposed in another CT. This is simply about voter notification or amendments—whichever way the nominator wants to proceed. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:56, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Please forgive me, but then I do not understand. How does my suggestion not have to do with voter notification and amendments? —fodigg (talk) | 19:59, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, fodigg, both suggestions are tied together. However, although they are intended to work in conjunction, they essentially propose two separate things, and that requires two CTs. We could tag an extra section onto this CT, but that would be too confusing, as people have already voted here. Best to wait the extra weeks or so so a fresh CT can be made. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 10:54, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Please forgive me, but then I do not understand. How does my suggestion not have to do with voter notification and amendments? —fodigg
- I understand, Fodigg, but this should be proposed in another CT. This is simply about voter notification or amendments—whichever way the nominator wants to proceed. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:56, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Which was why I was suggesting a week waiting period following any such notification to give them at least that long to log in. —fodigg
- Ok, I'll relent as I'd rather a majority-case protection be in place than disenfranchise a sporadic user by potentially disqualifying their votes. Still, if someone does go on vacation or leaves for an extended period of time we do have the ethical dilemma of counting their vote if they have not logged in to see the message. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:53, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding from the proposal as worded is that you must notify previous voters and get a reply back. —fodigg
- If you do not like the proposal, you are welcome to that opinion. Keep in mind, however, that there are two options outlined and that another amendment being voted upon is only one of the two options. If someone wants to make a change, all that is being said is that any previous voter must be told on their talk page that a change has been made so that they can update their vote one way or the other. The consequence for not doing that is nullification of the alteration. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:25, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- I would also suggest, rather than the waiting period of acceptable changes, that there's a waiting period before a CT could be considered "complete" after a change was made. So a person would make a CT, some people voted, but then you need to change the proposal so you make the change and post a notification on everybody's talk page who voted, and then the CT must remain open for at least a week after notifications go out to allow people to alter their vote. —fodigg
- I'm beginning to lean toward support here with the new wording. However, there is still a problem with the new one. Under the new rule, I could go in a CT and amend any part of it I wished, including changing options that already have votes. For example, I could simply change the option "support proposal" to "reject proposal", as long as I simply tell everyone about it. Also, can someone explain the second rule? I'm sorry, but I don't understand it completely. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 10:54, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, you could not change the headers of "support" or "reject" anyway, but that is not even talked about in this proposal… anywhere. This is solely about amending the proposal itself. And, as has been our means of operation in the past that only the nominator of the proposal alters it. This proposal does not even address that either! So, I do not see where you find that 'permission is granted' for you to now just jump into a forum and start altering things. I would hope that we would not have to mandate such ethics, so quibbling over that is spliting hairs. This proposal is solely about one thing: either contacting all users who have voted if a CT or TC proposal is being altered or adding amendments to the CT or TC to alter the proposal from its original state upon nomination. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 13:22, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, Fiolli. I must have misinterpreted the CT. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 10:29, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, you could not change the headers of "support" or "reject" anyway, but that is not even talked about in this proposal… anywhere. This is solely about amending the proposal itself. And, as has been our means of operation in the past that only the nominator of the proposal alters it. This proposal does not even address that either! So, I do not see where you find that 'permission is granted' for you to now just jump into a forum and start altering things. I would hope that we would not have to mandate such ethics, so quibbling over that is spliting hairs. This proposal is solely about one thing: either contacting all users who have voted if a CT or TC proposal is being altered or adding amendments to the CT or TC to alter the proposal from its original state upon nomination. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 13:22, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fair middle-ground. It informs everybody, but you're not stuck waiting for them to reply (they may be away, they may not care, but it means they don't need to constantly check the CT in case of a new voting option). Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 13:50, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- I'd support this if it included the "waiting period" before voting, simply because it would be a major hassle for someone to have to track down a bunch of people to get their approval. How about this as an alternative? To alter the proposal requires discussing with and getting the approval from the individual who began the vote/CT/etc and then must simply inform anyone else who has voted on their talk pages. That way they are informed of the change and can alter their vote if desired. - JMAS
- I agree with Toprawa, here. It is always best to hash things out with some people beforehand. I even asked about this and the language of this proposal before offering it. The SH is a great place to do that, but there should not be a requirement. Plus, in my haste, I accidentally deleted something I had intended to include. While accidents like that occur, I should have done a better job proof-reading. Plus, if a legitimate option arises, I highly doubt, based upon the history of other things, that such a large number of people would need to be contacted at that point. Should it get to that, simply retract the nomination and redraft it with the other things built in. There is nothing wrong with that. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:20, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that should be a requirement. Perhaps a recommendation in the instances that a CT can safely anticipate some debate and discussion, in which case it would probably alternatively be recommended that the proposer of the CT not instantly begin a vote right off the bat to actually allow for discussion to take place first. But there are enough instances of straightforward CT proposals that this would prove to be a burdensome waste of time if made mandatory. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:39, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. I would support a 24- or 48-hour waiting period after a CT goes up before voting begins to allow for tweaks (such as the "oops, missed that" variety so aptly illustrated above). This, of course, wouldn't be necessary if the proposal was discussed and fine-tuned in the SH before, as the kinks should already be worked out in that case. —Master Jonathan
- To be clear, because I don't think I fully understood the intent at the start, would a "change to the proposal" include the addition of further voting options, in instances when it isn't black&white? For example, this CT, where the third option "Remove the OOU eras, but don't add the IU eras" was added later on? Would this sort of amendment require notification? Or are we talking actually rephrasing the text of the proposal? Like, in the aforementioned example, if we changed We replace the eras we are using with the IU eras with We remove eras from the infobox? Thanks for the clarification! Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 15:25, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
