Board Thread:Policies/@comment-10473115-20160326125713/@comment-10473115-20160412235841

I've been examining how discussions are kept and how consensus is understood on Wikipedia and on Wookiepedia. I'm not entirely sure do we need a vote threshold but it has also its advantages. If there's support, I wouldn't oppose it. Wookiepedia, however, requires also edits within different namespaces to be in certain minimum relation to one other. That's excessive as we would need a calculator to determine voting eligibility. Could membership time used instead of edit count? Sometimes edit count represents poorly a value of editor and understanding our community and its (unwritten) conventions usually take some time. Time-based voting threshold would also prevent sockpuppetry.

We have also ongoing discussions which would serve as a good example cases. How would you determine consensus on Thread:902663 and on Thread:904005. I would also like to hear about your opinions; should we somehow differentiate consensus and rough consensus and how these should be treated differently, if there's no consensus what should be the outcome of discussion in different cases, should consensus be determined differently in different discussions, should a closer of a discussion use any kind of interpretation or just count votes. I would like to get get clear definition of consensus before getting too much detail about how and where we should keep discussions.