User talk:Kellen/Decision making

I like the wording. Importantly it preserves key elements of the current main version (listing out where votes are currently used, setting out who can vote, placing emphasis on consensus for higher impact decisions) and is clearer than the current text.

I have made some small amendments:


 * 1) I have replaced the requirement to have "substantial good faith discussions" with a requirement to have "substantive good faith discussions". It is the quality of the discussions - which should address all points thought to be key - that is important, not the quantity of those discussions. My guess is that is what you were getting at anyway.
 * 2) I have added a requirement to have substantive good faith discussions on any objections, not just on the proposal.

I'm not sure the wording regarding page deletion is quite right though. Some deletions are entirely uncontroversial (deleting patent nonsense, for example) - however, these rarely end up on VfD. What we have had on VfD is experienced Wikibookians coming to a different conclusion than that arrived at by new editors - and some possible (but not necessarily proven) sockpuppets. We have also had statements from above empowering admins to have their head over deletion of text that does not meet our inclusion criteria. In these cases it is debatable as to whether we have consensus to delete text that, in experienced WBian eyes, does not belong. We should not require a high threshold here. In other cases on VfD the matter at hand has very much crossed over the line to policy decisions. Here a high threshold should be required. I'm not sure what alternative wording to suggest though, Jguk 05:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Much better...
I like this a lot better than the other proposal... for one thing, it's simpler.

I made some changes to "voting", my additions in italics:


 * In the case of low-impact decisions, the option with the largest number of valid votes is the winner.
 * For high-impact decisions, votes and debates should be left open as long as progress towards reaching consensus is being made.

The second line probably needs rewording: the point is that debate should be kept open on high-impact decisions so long as there is constructive debate. If there is deadlock and entrenched voting blocs, there's really not much point in debating further. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replaced "largest number of" with "most" in the interests of brevity, Jguk 13:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User responses
I have changed it to the text suggested on the voting procedures talk page. RobinH 19:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Extending the rules for use in general disputes
I added: "#Resolving disputes where parties agree to use voting as a method of gauging opinion or taking decisions." RobinH 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)