Board Thread:Policies/@comment-10473115-20170416232800/@comment-10473115-20170417102836

ADour wrote: I'd first suggest to establish voting as part of a bigger decision-making policy. As for that still inexistent policy, we can create a decision-making brainstorming thread to combine various input from admins and mods into a policy. What do you say? Our only existing policy concerning decision-making is Consensus. This new policy page is meant to complement that. If it's accepted, there would still be lot do and we most certainly will have more discussions. But to get things started, I think that it would be beneficial for us to find a way to get this policy accepted. We have a history to make these proposals and their discussions too complicated to manage so it would be beneficial to propose only minimum amount of additions to it at this stage. After it's accepted, we can come back and decide one thing at the time. So I suggest that we consider this as a seeking of lowest common nominator and not as the ultimate goal.

Annabell mentioned 60-65% which seems good to me. I think that consensus for a policy could need a bigger threshold than editorial decisions but I'd like to suggest that we decide this after the voting policy is accepted. Of course we would need voting threshold for voting in this proposal also so if you feel that it's absolutely necessary, we have to decide it first. I don't think that there should be any. Progression should not be stopped by inactivity and those who seek it should not be demanded to drag uninterested along. It could also lead to a situation where somebody's vote would fill requirement resulting to a decision against user's actual vote. I suggest the voting between three options:Open, Closed, Threshold. Closed means admins and content moderators and threshold would be some kind threshold to voting eligibility to be decided later if it wins. We have discussed briefly about those thresholds in consensus thread. It would be very helpful to get this decided and written to a policy so I suggest that simple majority wins in this voting. If one option gets over half of votes, it will win outright and otherwise we arrange a second round between two most voted options. If there's no opposition from the rest of the community, we can restrict voting for only admins and content moderators. With a possibility of two rounds, it could take a long time to get this resolved but there have already been suspect that a week is too short voting period. I think that it's better to get things right than to be quick and to ensure community's approval of the result, I propose that the voting period would be two weeks or one week without a vote. I would also like to point out that the voting policy is meant to include all votings, not just about policies, so if you think that we should have different rules for example admin selections or content disputes it would be good to know before we start the voting. I think that voting and discussion should be kept separate. Voting should be done on talk or project page. Ultimately we should have discussion templates which would mark open discussions/votings to a notification pages with a timestamp. This should be decided later. I agree with Copeinator that one week and three days without a vote could be too short time for us. But longer time could lead to unnecessary waiting and frustrations about bureaucratic decision-making. Also decision about eligible voters could affect to this. We could vote between one week with three days without a vote and two weeks with one week without a vote or remove the premature ending altogether. I would like to hear more opinions before vote proposal.
 * Clear Consensus Threshold
 * Minimum Participation Requirement
 * Open or Closed Balloting
 * Thread Format
 * Total Duration