Board Thread:Policies/@comment-10473115-20170416232800/@comment-61022-20170417223732


 * Clear Consensus Threshold

I think something over 50% is sufficient. 60%-65% of votes sounds fair.


 * Minimum Participation Requirement

I think all those eligible for voting should at least view the policy change request. If it's something they're not interested in weighing in on they should immediately post that they abstain from the discussion.

The only issue I can see if making sure that those who abstain from making a decision is informed on what is ultimately decided. A solution to that could be that the person who made the proposal posts the decisions on the abstainers message wall to make sure they are informed, or at least send out a global message advising every one of the change.


 * Open or Closed Balloting

I think closed balloting will help keep grudges from forming, at least on an individual basis so I'd recommend this.


 * Thread Format

I'm thinking that with the limitations of threads they are only practical for discussion. I think we should look for other avenues for voting. I'd recommend the Facebook page I've set up here since there are voting functions. It also gives a second avenue to get people's attention on what is being discussed on the Wiki. Often times we're busy with our outside lives, so I think the second method of notification of an upcoming discussion/vote would be beneficial.

However, that only works if we're all agreeing to open voting.

closed voting however, I think that that a third party service would work best.

I'd recommend https://www.surveymonkey.com/ Because they can do closed voting and there are a variety of options for write-ins and other suggestions so we can continue to develop the idea without the discussion getting overly bogged with long threads.

Total Duration:
I think that duration of a policy change should actually depend on how much discussion we engage in regarding the topic in question.

I think if we follow a democratic model of voting we could organize and streamline the discussions accordingly.

Here's what I'm thinking:

Phase 1

 * The Proposal: A change is proposed. The person making the proposal states their case as best they can outline the benefits of making said change. Responses to the initial proposal should be strictly focused on any clarifications are needed. This phase of the discussion should stick with the proposed idea as opposed the technical side of things.


 * First Vote: Eligible contributors vote on if they agree or disagree with the idea. This is strictly a vote. Voters would choose to agree, disagree, or abstain from the further proceedings.


 * Response Period One - Those Against: For those who want to debate against the proposed change or aren't totally sold on the idea. They can be given an opportunity to explain why they are against it. Detailing why they think it is not a good idea and provide detail on why. This should only focus on what doesn't work, this wouldn't be the time for developing compromises or giving alternate ideas. The original proposer would not comment on anything here until after the disagreement period ends.


 * Response Period Two - Those For: The opposite, those who support the idea, or think it could be improved upon explain why they think it is a good idea in detail. This should focus on what they like the idea. Not provide amendments or alternate ideas. The original proposer would not comment until the agreement period ends


 * Rebuttal Period - The original poster goes through all of the items brought up in the response period. Provides any rebuttals, amendments, or additional ideas they may have come up with regarding the original proposal. That way, we can concentrate on all the issues brought up without them being lost in all the counter responses.


 * Second Vote - Those who haven't abstained can vote again. This time, they can vote to agree, disagree, or compromise.

Phase 2
If the Majority Agrees on the Changes:

If there is a majority agreement, the next discussion would focus on how to impliment the changes, go into technical issues and iron out and bugs that might happen along the way.

If the Majority Disagrees:

The proposed change is turned down. If the original proposer still thinks it is a viable idea but thinks there is a different way to approach the issue, they can make a similar propsoal in another two months after giving some time to think about it. An appeal if you will. I think we should limit the appeal process to two time process. So we're not constantly going through appeals.

If the Majority Votes Compromise, or there is no Clear Victory Between Agree and Disagree

Then we all accept that the suggestion has merit and we should strive for a compromise. The compromise scenario would be broken up as follows:


 * Compromise - Those Who Were Against Changes: Have an opportunity to express what compromises would be needed to make any proposed changes be agreeable to them. This should focus on what could be done to improve the idea. A full on disagreement on the subject without any creative criticism or input on how to make the idea better would not be accepted at this point. Original proposer does not engage in conversation here.


 * Compromise - Those Who Are For the Change: They have an opportunity to express what they like most about the proposed change, and identify items that they are willing to compromise on changing in order to make the changes agreeable to those who are against it. Original proposer does not engage in conversation here.


 * Compromise Response: The original proposer reviews all of the for and against comments, and after taking everything said into account makes a compromise proposal.


 * Final Input: A free for all where any last minute suggestions or changes can be made now that everyone has spoken their mind. At this point, the discussion should be focused on finding the best compromise possible. We're beyond agreeing or disagree, we're about making it work for everybody at this point.


 * Final Compromise Statement: Original poster goes through the final input, makes necessary amendments based on feedback.


 * Compromise Vote: Agree, Disagree, Abstain. Only.

At that point we following the majority vote. If it's an unclear vote then we go back to the compromise phase. I think that if we cannot come to something everyone agrees with after two compromise debates, we should then get one get Jamie or Nathan to go over everything that has been discussed and they make a final decision on the matter.

Given that they are on limited time, we table the discussion until such a time they make a final agreement.

However, if this becomes too daunting a task, I think we should ask them to select someone who is incredibly active in the community to be promoted to bureaucrat status and be given those same powers.

Lenth of Time:
I think a happy medium on the discussions and votes -- provided that everyone follows the parameters of discussion/voting -- I think we can do each applicable phase over a two week period. So two week for votes. Two weeks for specific discussions etc.

Stragglers
As for active participation, I think during the agree/disagree phase, each camp should elect a champion for their side of the debate and have them reach out to those who haven't voted one way or the other.

Once a Final Decision Has been Reached
We should have someone to officially make a statement regarding the changes. They post a global message. The person posting said changes, has two weeks to clarify anything they aren't clear on with the original proposer.

What do you all think?