Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:54:02Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

Jonathan: /* "Git 'er done" */ new section

2010-07-30T18:56:58Z

"Git 'er done": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 30 July 2010
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
	::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

			== "Git 'er done" ==

			This sounds good, well thought out and capable of being implemented. Let's do it.--[[User:Jonathan\|Jonathan]] 18:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Spencerian: Whoops...wrong page.

2007-11-11T18:35:31Z

Whoops...wrong page.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 11 November 2007
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
	::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

	~~== Comments ==~~

	I have two polarized views on this, both important. (1) It is in Battlestar Wiki's interests to support the writers, since they are the content generators that actually make the show, and form it into something worth watching, worth reading, worth documenting. Without the writers, Battlestar Wiki would not exist. But, (2) Battlestar Wiki '''does not own''' ''Battlestar Galactica'' in any form. We are allowed to document the various ''Battlestar Galactica'' episodes and other media under the legally-specious "fair use" doctrines. In the end, the show is owned by NBC Universal, which, if we took sides in an issue that we do not own, can (in the worst case) order a cease-and-desist and shut Battlestar Wiki down in a heartbeat, and petition the transfer of the wiki's content to their wiki.

	Because of this, I recommend that Battlestar Wiki stay {{neutral}} on the Writer's Strike. I know that Joe (as well as myself and others as individuals) obviously support the writer's efforts for fair compensation for their efforts, but we must also respect the content owner's right not to have third-parties that haven't any legal involvement with the dispute from generating a protest action on behalf of fans. I think this is the "dark side" of being a free wiki on copyrighted works. As ''individuals'' we can support anything and anyone we want. As the organized body of Battlestar Wiki, we can be targeted for politicizing, which is not our purpose. I wouldn't want to tick off the network executives any more than the writers. I don't think we should use Battlestar Wiki as a soapbox in this issue. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:34, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Spencerian: New section: Comments

2007-11-11T18:34:49Z

New section: Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 11 November 2007
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
	::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

			== Comments ==

			I have two polarized views on this, both important. (1) It is in Battlestar Wiki's interests to support the writers, since they are the content generators that actually make the show, and form it into something worth watching, worth reading, worth documenting. Without the writers, Battlestar Wiki would not exist. But, (2) Battlestar Wiki '''does not own''' ''Battlestar Galactica'' in any form. We are allowed to document the various ''Battlestar Galactica'' episodes and other media under the legally-specious "fair use" doctrines. In the end, the show is owned by NBC Universal, which, if we took sides in an issue that we do not own, can (in the worst case) order a cease-and-desist and shut Battlestar Wiki down in a heartbeat, and petition the transfer of the wiki's content to their wiki.

			Because of this, I recommend that Battlestar Wiki stay {{neutral}} on the Writer's Strike. I know that Joe (as well as myself and others as individuals) obviously support the writer's efforts for fair compensation for their efforts, but we must also respect the content owner's right not to have third-parties that haven't any legal involvement with the dispute from generating a protest action on behalf of fans. I think this is the "dark side" of being a free wiki on copyrighted works. As ''individuals'' we can support anything and anyone we want. As the organized body of Battlestar Wiki, we can be targeted for politicizing, which is not our purpose. I wouldn't want to tick off the network executives any more than the writers. I don't think we should use Battlestar Wiki as a soapbox in this issue. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:34, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Steelviper: /* Wikistrike? */ moving to specific page

2007-11-11T14:48:21Z

Wikistrike?: moving to specific page

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:48, 11 November 2007
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
	::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

	~~== Wikistrike? ==~~

	When I first saw this, I was concerned that it was proposing that WE strike. Which, while that might sound noble, I doubt would have any impact on the thinking on TPTB that make the real decisions. Stopping work (or, more extreme, shutting down the site) would hurt the fans without directly impacting the studios. (I'd like to think that our work does indirectly help them... but we're still here because they suffer us, so I don't want to get too big of a head.)

	As for this proposal, I'd be in favor of it. Regardless of the position that we took, just having a visible position at all will help bring attention to the situation to those who weren't aware of it. As almost all contributions to this site involve writing, and are about the stories that the writers(and writer/producers) bring to the table, it's pretty reasonable to expect our community to align more on the side of the writers than otherwise. I'd certainly be welcome to hearing opposing views on the issue... I'd just be surprised if there were too many weighing in on the side of the studios. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 08:47, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Steelviper: New section: Wikistrike?

2007-11-11T14:47:12Z

New section: Wikistrike?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:47, 11 November 2007
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
	::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

			== Wikistrike? ==

			When I first saw this, I was concerned that it was proposing that WE strike. Which, while that might sound noble, I doubt would have any impact on the thinking on TPTB that make the real decisions. Stopping work (or, more extreme, shutting down the site) would hurt the fans without directly impacting the studios. (I'd like to think that our work does indirectly help them... but we're still here because they suffer us, so I don't want to get too big of a head.)

			As for this proposal, I'd be in favor of it. Regardless of the position that we took, just having a visible position at all will help bring attention to the situation to those who weren't aware of it. As almost all contributions to this site involve writing, and are about the stories that the writers(and writer/producers) bring to the table, it's pretty reasonable to expect our community to align more on the side of the writers than otherwise. I'd certainly be welcome to hearing opposing views on the issue... I'd just be surprised if there were too many weighing in on the side of the studios. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 08:47, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Catrope: /* Consensusless proposals */ delayed till I have time

2007-06-07T18:16:55Z

Consensusless proposals: delayed till I have time

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 7 June 2007
Line 72:		Line 72:
	Exactly how long are these supposed to cool down? Apart from the recently added Deletion Discussions, all these proposals were rejected somewhere between June and November 2006, i.e. 8 months to 1 year ago. Maybe it's time to review these. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 12:47, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		Exactly how long are these supposed to cool down? Apart from the recently added Deletion Discussions, all these proposals were rejected somewhere between June and November 2006, i.e. 8 months to 1 year ago. Maybe it's time to review these. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 12:47, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
	:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
			::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Spencerian: /* Consensusless proposals */ +thought

2007-06-07T18:04:59Z

Consensusless proposals: +thought

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:04, 7 June 2007
Line 71:		Line 71:

	Exactly how long are these supposed to cool down? Apart from the recently added Deletion Discussions, all these proposals were rejected somewhere between June and November 2006, i.e. 8 months to 1 year ago. Maybe it's time to review these. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 12:47, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		Exactly how long are these supposed to cool down? Apart from the recently added Deletion Discussions, all these proposals were rejected somewhere between June and November 2006, i.e. 8 months to 1 year ago. Maybe it's time to review these. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 12:47, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
			:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Catrope: Consensusless proposals

2007-06-07T17:47:00Z

Consensusless proposals

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:47, 7 June 2007
Line 67:		Line 67:

	:: I wasn't "slave" to it. I read it: ''the default deadline for voting on proposals should be seven days'' If it isn't clear on the main page then, have it changed. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 01:12, 18 July 2006 (CDT)		:: I wasn't "slave" to it. I read it: ''the default deadline for voting on proposals should be seven days'' If it isn't clear on the main page then, have it changed. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 01:12, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

			== Consensusless proposals ==

			Exactly how long are these supposed to cool down? Apart from the recently added Deletion Discussions, all these proposals were rejected somewhere between June and November 2006, i.e. 8 months to 1 year ago. Maybe it's time to review these. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 12:47, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Shane: /* Input on Prodecures */

2006-07-18T06:12:04Z

Input on Prodecures

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:12, 18 July 2006
Line 65:		Line 65:

	: You are once again demonstrating your tendency to want to slave to the absolute letter of the law. I consider a week for discussion a bit fast, personally. I might only get to look at the Wiki three or four times (maybe less, but let's say average) in that time and most often late at night, when I am not very mentally alert (like right now, it's after midnight here). The idea of the Think Tank was not to give projects two weeks... It was to allow for reasonable discussion and deliberation of a project followed by concensus gathering. The time-table is secondary. I've not looked it up, but I bet if you went and looked up how long it took us to deliberate over and then gather consensus on the current spoiler policy, you would see that it was more than two weeks. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]] - [http://hiver.swordofthestars.com/ SotS])</sup> 00:15, 18 July 2006 (CDT)		: You are once again demonstrating your tendency to want to slave to the absolute letter of the law. I consider a week for discussion a bit fast, personally. I might only get to look at the Wiki three or four times (maybe less, but let's say average) in that time and most often late at night, when I am not very mentally alert (like right now, it's after midnight here). The idea of the Think Tank was not to give projects two weeks... It was to allow for reasonable discussion and deliberation of a project followed by concensus gathering. The time-table is secondary. I've not looked it up, but I bet if you went and looked up how long it took us to deliberate over and then gather consensus on the current spoiler policy, you would see that it was more than two weeks. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]] - [http://hiver.swordofthestars.com/ SotS])</sup> 00:15, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

			:: I wasn't "slave" to it. I read it: ''the default deadline for voting on proposals should be seven days'' If it isn't clear on the main page then, have it changed. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 01:12, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 7 June 2007
Line 72:		Line 72:
	Exactly how long are these supposed to cool down? Apart from the recently added Deletion Discussions, all these proposals were rejected somewhere between June and November 2006, i.e. 8 months to 1 year ago. Maybe it's time to review these. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 12:47, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		Exactly how long are these supposed to cool down? Apart from the recently added Deletion Discussions, all these proposals were rejected somewhere between June and November 2006, i.e. 8 months to 1 year ago. Maybe it's time to review these. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 12:47, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
	:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)		:Well, if you like sticking your hands in fire (what ''is'' it with the summer hiatus and "uppity" proposals around here? :), then feel free to champion any of these and return it to the fore. Note that I'd give such proposals a big rewrite to make them germane to any progress that's occurred since they were introduced. Otherwise, many of us may go ''"Oooh! Something shiny..!"'' and ignore it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 13:04, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
			::I'll stick my hand in the fire when I have time, then :) --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 00:43, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		#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:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 16:58, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		::::I like the talk pages. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 16:51, 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:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 18:13, 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:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 17:12, 1 July 2006 (CDT)		::::That's a good point. Not everyone wants to watch Recent Changes like a hawk. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:12, 1 July 2006 (CDT)

	==Voting==		==Voting==
	Is a vote always required, or only when objections are raised? --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 08:30, 5 July 2006 (CDT)		Is a vote always required, or only when objections are raised? --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 03:10, 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:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 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)