Editing Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank
Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I understand why Joe feels that admin input should be privileged and that all admins should be required to weigh in before enacting a change, and I don't fully disagree with him, but I must raise two concerns: | I understand why Joe feels that admin input should be privileged and that all admins should be required to weigh in before enacting a change, and I don't fully disagree with him, but I must raise two concerns: | ||
#I believe that it is dangerous to privilege admin opinions over non-admin users. In particular, I do not believe that my opinion should outweigh a dedicated long-time contributor such as The Merovingian, whose failure to achieve admin status to date is entirely apart from his competency as a contributor and the validity of his point of view. | #I believe that it is dangerous to privilege admin opinions over non-admin users. In particular, I do not believe that my opinion should outweigh a dedicated long-time contributor such as The Merovingian, whose failure to achieve admin status to date is entirely apart from his competency as a contributor and the validity of his point of view. | ||
#It may be unrealistic to await a response from ''all'' administrators - of the seven current admins, several have fairly sporadic availability. As an alternative, I might propose that we require a quorum (50% + 1) of administrators to weigh in. (On the other hand, major proposals can wait the week or so it would take to round up all admins, but this will become more of a problem as the admin staff grows). --[[User: | #It may be unrealistic to await a response from ''all'' administrators - of the seven current admins, several have fairly sporadic availability. As an alternative, I might propose that we require a quorum (50% + 1) of administrators to weigh in. (On the other hand, major proposals can wait the week or so it would take to round up all admins, but this will become more of a problem as the admin staff grows). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:43, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::I agree with both points. As a nitpick, "more than half" is probably a better way of defining quorum. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 01:14, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | :::I agree with both points. As a nitpick, "more than half" is probably a better way of defining quorum. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 01:14, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::Exactly. I certainly dont think that its fair to ignore non administrators but that a minimum number of administrator approvals would be a good idea. There are 6 [[Special:Listusers/sysop|admins]] now and so it would be quite easy for several to reply to an issue before a change.--[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 08:15, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ::::Exactly. I certainly dont think that its fair to ignore non administrators but that a minimum number of administrator approvals would be a good idea. There are 6 [[Special:Listusers/sysop|admins]] now and so it would be quite easy for several to reply to an issue before a change.--[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 08:15, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::Ditto. Best to let our majority shape things as best as possible, although the use of a talk page for doing this WILL SUCK. Does MediaWiki have a user vote feature? Given how people visit the wiki sporadically, I recommend a 1/4 to 1/3 quorum of users or a fixed number, plus a quorum of at least 3 admins. One-half of the user base is really unrealistic, and waiting for such changes may make the progress of approving sweeping changes slower than a glacial event. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] | :::Ditto. Best to let our majority shape things as best as possible, although the use of a talk page for doing this WILL SUCK. Does MediaWiki have a user vote feature? Given how people visit the wiki sporadically, I recommend a 1/4 to 1/3 quorum of users or a fixed number, plus a quorum of at least 3 admins. One-half of the user base is really unrealistic, and waiting for such changes may make the progress of approving sweeping changes slower than a glacial event. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] | ||
::::I like the talk pages. --[[User: | ::::I like the talk pages. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:58, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::To clarify, I was referring to the "quorum...of administrators," suggesting the adminstrator requirement should be changed from "all" to "more than half," i.e. currently four. I agree that getting half the ''users'' to do any one thing is unfeasible. I also like the talk pages for their integration and attributable history. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 01:00, 1 July 2006 (CDT) | ::::To clarify, I was referring to the "quorum...of administrators," suggesting the adminstrator requirement should be changed from "all" to "more than half," i.e. currently four. I agree that getting half the ''users'' to do any one thing is unfeasible. I also like the talk pages for their integration and attributable history. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 01:00, 1 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
: Good points, here. I agree that administrators opinions hold the same weight as a regular contributor. The issue here is that this Think Tank will only work if people comment. Otherwise it isn't going to do us any good. Therefore, I would like to propose that any proposal requires a minimum of 10 contributors to comment on said proposal. That way we don't have things that aren't commented upon. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 09:40, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | : Good points, here. I agree that administrators opinions hold the same weight as a regular contributor. The issue here is that this Think Tank will only work if people comment. Otherwise it isn't going to do us any good. Therefore, I would like to propose that any proposal requires a minimum of 10 contributors to comment on said proposal. That way we don't have things that aren't commented upon. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 09:40, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::I don't like the idea of a ten-comment quota, which may be difficult to meet for the more back-end-ish or esoteric proposals. I think I'd prefer a one-week minimum comment period, after which implementation could procede if no serious objections came up (and provided the above-discussed quorum of admins had weighed in). --[[User: | ::I don't like the idea of a ten-comment quota, which may be difficult to meet for the more back-end-ish or esoteric proposals. I think I'd prefer a one-week minimum comment period, after which implementation could procede if no serious objections came up (and provided the above-discussed quorum of admins had weighed in). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:51, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::I have made the changes. Are there any other issues that need to be hammered out? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 23:04, 4 July 2006 (CDT) | :::I have made the changes. Are there any other issues that need to be hammered out? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 23:04, 4 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
One item I'd like to propose adding to the "major changes" list is a non-passive change to a template that is in use (not subst'd). That is to say, adding/removing/modifying a template in such a way that requires going to each page that uses the template and making a change. A past example has been additions to the Character template. I think new techniques have been learned that have allowed passive changes to be made, but anything requiring a "cleanup effort" should be discussed, since reverting it (in the case that there isn't consensus for it) would be a cleanup effort of its own (rather than a simple article revert). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:39, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | One item I'd like to propose adding to the "major changes" list is a non-passive change to a template that is in use (not subst'd). That is to say, adding/removing/modifying a template in such a way that requires going to each page that uses the template and making a change. A past example has been additions to the Character template. I think new techniques have been learned that have allowed passive changes to be made, but anything requiring a "cleanup effort" should be discussed, since reverting it (in the case that there isn't consensus for it) would be a cleanup effort of its own (rather than a simple article revert). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:39, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
: In my mind at least, this is a major change, particularly once the template has been implemented. So I agree. What does everyone else have to say about it? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 08:56, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | : In my mind at least, this is a major change, particularly once the template has been implemented. So I agree. What does everyone else have to say about it? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 08:56, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::Just in terms of a location for those discussions, wouldn't it be better to talk about changes to a template on that template's talk page, rather than here? After a proposal is reached in the Template talk namespace, it could be sent here for final approval. --[[User: | ::Just in terms of a location for those discussions, wouldn't it be better to talk about changes to a template on that template's talk page, rather than here? After a proposal is reached in the Template talk namespace, it could be sent here for final approval. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:13, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::The only problem that currently exists with the template talk model is that it can take weeks before anybody responds to a proposal there sometimes. It'd be nice if there was a least a centralized list of links to proposals so that people could know where the "action" is. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:55, 1 July 2006 (CDT) | :::The only problem that currently exists with the template talk model is that it can take weeks before anybody responds to a proposal there sometimes. It'd be nice if there was a least a centralized list of links to proposals so that people could know where the "action" is. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:55, 1 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::That's a good point. Not everyone wants to watch Recent Changes like a hawk. --[[User: | ::::That's a good point. Not everyone wants to watch Recent Changes like a hawk. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:12, 1 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
==Voting== | ==Voting== | ||
Is a vote always required, or only when objections are raised? --[[User: | Is a vote always required, or only when objections are raised? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 08:30, 5 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
:"Should a vote be necessary to determine consensus" | :"Should a vote be necessary to determine consensus" | ||
:The way it reads to me, if there is a clear consensus a vote wouldn't be required. However, a minimum timeframe for even "clear consensus" scenarios would be wise (a day or two, or so?) to prevent something getting "rushed" through the process while all of its supporters are on before any potential objectors get a chance to read it. Unless we require a vote for them all (in which case we should rephrase that bit).--[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:59, 5 July 2006 (CDT) | :The way it reads to me, if there is a clear consensus a vote wouldn't be required. However, a minimum timeframe for even "clear consensus" scenarios would be wise (a day or two, or so?) to prevent something getting "rushed" through the process while all of its supporters are on before any potential objectors get a chance to read it. Unless we require a vote for them all (in which case we should rephrase that bit).--[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:59, 5 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
As far as the initial construction you had in mind, Joe, is this thing done? I have a reletively small change that I'd like to dicuss, but it's to the Main Page, so I think it would go well here. If you're ready for it, then I'd like to go ahead and test this baby out. --[[User:Day|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]])</sup> 00:45, 7 July 2006 (CDT) | As far as the initial construction you had in mind, Joe, is this thing done? I have a reletively small change that I'd like to dicuss, but it's to the Main Page, so I think it would go well here. If you're ready for it, then I'd like to go ahead and test this baby out. --[[User:Day|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]])</sup> 00:45, 7 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
:Just want to big a give kudos to everyone who helped put this together so quickly. I'm really optimistic about this process. --[[User: | :Just want to big a give kudos to everyone who helped put this together so quickly. I'm really optimistic about this process. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:10, 7 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
::When this is declared "complete" and ready to go live, is it going to be a project (or a policy... or a podcast)? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:46, 7 July 2006 (CDT) | ::When this is declared "complete" and ready to go live, is it going to be a project (or a policy... or a podcast)? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:46, 7 July 2006 (CDT) | ||