Wikibooks talk:General voting rules/Proposal/Version 5

Clarification
In the low impact section it currently reads:
 * "Some Low-Impact situations, such as nominating votes for the book of the month and the collaboration of the month already have preexisting sets of voting rules that should be followed in lieu of this policy."

Don't the voting rules on those projects already fit within this structure (i.e., "wikibookians are welcome to employ multiple means for decision-making, including consensus, majority votes, or 3rd party arbitration")? If so, maybe take out this sentence altogether, or remove the phrase "that should be followed in lieu of this policy". As the phrasing of the rule explicitly encourages low-priority projects to come up with voting rules, it seems a bit strange to add loopholes for certain projects, especially when they don't actually need them. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true, but BOTM and COTM also specify that in the case of a tie, the oldest book wins. Also, BOTM and COTM specify a 20 contribution minimum, which might not be a part of the final policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. However, those rules certainly fit into the loose framework of the rule in any case. The current wording might be interpreted as those voting rules being "set in stone", when it seems to me better to leave them flexible in case there's consensus to change them at a later date. SB_Johnny  | talk 09:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Decisions affecting a single module, a single book, or a localized project
These were part of "low imapct decisions" ie:

4. Decisions affecting a single module, a single book, or a localized project.

User:Kellen deleted this line but did not provide any replacement text. This means that the voting policy would not apply to large swathes of Wikibooks' processes such as "decisions affecting a single module, a single book, or a localized project". Kellen noted that he would prefer these types of decision to be "consensus" decisions in the sense used in this proposal. I am happy either way but they should be included in the proposal. RobinH 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing she didn't want that to automatically apply (I believe Cookbook might use consensus). Added this to the High-impact decisions:


 * 6. Establishing the voting rules for low-impact decisions


 * SB_Johnny | talk 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason I deleted this line is that it if each "single module, single book, or localized project" is allowed to choose majority-rules voting for their content decisions it will fundamentally alter the culture of wikibooks and work to supplant consensus decision making out of convenience. Any content decision should be validated by consensus. Kellen T 08:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm basically asserting that it's not 'low impact' to vote on actual content in any circumstance, and that the line should be deleted again. Kellen T 09:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case I agree completely. Perhaps replace with:
 * "Other votes that express the communities opinion on issues that have no effect on policy, content, or structure."
 * -- SB_Johnny | talk 09:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)Kellen said that item 4 would "supplant consensus decision making" in these areas. In this case item 4 should be moved to the section on consensus decision making. RobinH 09:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to explain that votes taken in these circumstances should use the consensus rules. RobinH 10:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)