Hello there! Earlier I proposed to several other ECs via Dscord the prospect of raising the limit of active nominations a user can have at any given time on the CAN page.
Currently rule 10 of the CAN page reads "Users must successfully complete one Comprehensive article nomination before they can have two nominations active on the CAN page at one time. Likewise, users must complete two successful CA nominations before they can have three, and three successful CA nominations before they can have four."
After some discussion there is general agreement among the EduCorps to consider raising the total cap to six. Once a user has four successful CA nominations under their belt, under the policy change I'm proposing they would then be permitted to have six active CA nomations on the CAN page at one time. This is hopefully a trial run that would lead to changes regarding similar rules on the GAN and FAN pages and possibly further increases in the limits on how many active nominations a user can have.
Before any formal changes are made by EduCorps I wanted to inform the community to gauge their opinions. Thoughts? Fan26 (Talk) 19:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
[UPDATE]: CT vote is now live! OOM 224 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
- Sounds good to me VergenceScatter (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- With the caveat that I rarely review CANs, this sounds good to me. The current process is moving along very nicely (average passage time is probably way under two weeks) and we're due to set a record in successful CANs this year. I think we as a community can handle a slight increase in the nomination limit. 1358 (Talk) 19:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Most CAs probably round out at about a 10 day passing average if their nominators respond in a prompt manner; being able to add a handful more wouldn't hurt that pace I think, sounds great.—spookywillowwtalk 20:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have noticed the high quantity of CANs at the same time: I know we could "handle" it. However, I also believe that there are too many CANs at the same time, and increasing the limit... Well, it would probably increase (Possibly a considerable amount) the time required for a CAN to pass. Although I could probably benefit from this, in some ways, I believe it is fine how it is. (Please note I have just recently began working on/reviewing CANs and do not know much on how much time CANs require) — Samonic
20:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC) - Nominators are going to make more nominations either way, so raising the limit shouldn't have a negative tangible effect on anything like article quality or the speed of the entire process. As with the situation right now, what's most important is that there should be more people making more (and better) reviews. OOM 224 20:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Per OOM. The nominations are coming either way, this just speeds things up a bit. I'd honestly expect additional nominations to translate to more people reviewing as well. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 04:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It probably will cause more reviews, personally, I have been increasing my work on CANs and also reviews at the same time. So I think it will translate to that.— Samonic 08:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It probably will cause more reviews, personally, I have been increasing my work on CANs and also reviews at the same time. So I think it will translate to that.— Samonic
- Overall, this sounds like a good idea even though I do have some reservations, but the proof is in the pudding. UberSoldat93
(talk) 05:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC) - I can only echo what OOM and Preem have said. I'm happy with the change. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 13:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the change is fine, but per Shay. LucaRoR
(Talk) 14:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
