This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. |
WikiProject Administrator ( subpages) | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This page is for ' meta-discussion' about the RFC process itself (where CDA will put to the community), and what will constitute acceptance of the process, and how to begin using the process.
NOTE: This is NOT the place to discuss either amendments to the existing CDA process, or to pass comments on its merits or problems:
We need to continue to observe here for late comments but soon, I think, it will be time to move the discussions on to WT:CDA and Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ. I'd like to complete a quick analysis of the answers to Proposal 5 first - should get to that tomorrow. Ben Mac Dui 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Please check what I say if I'm wrong, but I'm aware of three pages editors should be looking at, at this point, in regard to developing what will go before the community:
Did I miss anything? Just trying to keep us all on the same page (pages!). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion: After we have the proposal finalized, might it be a good idea to full-protect the first two of those three pages linked just above, so that they don't get modified ad hoc while the community is, for the most part, reading them for the first time? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
To do
|
---|
Figure out what the RfC needs to include.
Wikipedia:Administrators is a policy and if the WP:CDA receives community support would need to be amended. This should therefore be referred to as part of the formal RfC (see below). Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is described as a "guide to current practice". Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is described as a "process" and is not listed as a policy or guideline. This suggests that in addition to any useful background per WT:CDADR the RfC should state that the proposal is to:
Ideally the main proposal would be a yes/no question with the usual sections for support/oppose/neutral although there may need up being a choice between competing options if the current process does not resolve this. Or, to put it another way - deciding which issues (if any) will be left open for further discussion during the RFC.
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. |
WikiProject Administrator ( subpages) | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This page is for ' meta-discussion' about the RFC process itself (where CDA will put to the community), and what will constitute acceptance of the process, and how to begin using the process.
NOTE: This is NOT the place to discuss either amendments to the existing CDA process, or to pass comments on its merits or problems:
We need to continue to observe here for late comments but soon, I think, it will be time to move the discussions on to WT:CDA and Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ. I'd like to complete a quick analysis of the answers to Proposal 5 first - should get to that tomorrow. Ben Mac Dui 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Please check what I say if I'm wrong, but I'm aware of three pages editors should be looking at, at this point, in regard to developing what will go before the community:
Did I miss anything? Just trying to keep us all on the same page (pages!). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion: After we have the proposal finalized, might it be a good idea to full-protect the first two of those three pages linked just above, so that they don't get modified ad hoc while the community is, for the most part, reading them for the first time? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
To do
|
---|
Figure out what the RfC needs to include.
Wikipedia:Administrators is a policy and if the WP:CDA receives community support would need to be amended. This should therefore be referred to as part of the formal RfC (see below). Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is described as a "guide to current practice". Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is described as a "process" and is not listed as a policy or guideline. This suggests that in addition to any useful background per WT:CDADR the RfC should state that the proposal is to:
Ideally the main proposal would be a yes/no question with the usual sections for support/oppose/neutral although there may need up being a choice between competing options if the current process does not resolve this. Or, to put it another way - deciding which issues (if any) will be left open for further discussion during the RFC.
|