So, our mod nomination process and rule creation process leaves much to be desired. I have been too much of a personal gatekeeper on rules, and my nomination of Chads, while met with overwhelming enthusiasm, doesn’t really fit within, shall we say, an orderly and peaceful transition of power. As the recent dueling polls of jman and Keed illustrated, phrasing matters a lot, and putting up spontaneous polls that have permanent consequences on the community leaves a lot to be desired.
While I do not want any further discussion of my c-word thread and poll in this thread, I think it is an example of, well, many failures, but one of those failures is that of process. I tried to solicit many possible opinions via poll, and it left in its wake what many people considered to be a ratified rule that was not clear in its meaning. Here is what I am thinking. Any proposed rule or moderator nomination should start out as a request for comments that solicits both comments and broad-minded straw poll votes of the most interested community members prior to submission for an up and down vote that is accepted or rejected based upon an agreed standard, whatever we establish that to be. Perhaps a bona fide rule vote should also require the approval of one or more moderators? I could see zero, one, a majority or unanimity of moderators all being defensible standards here. It’s my opinion that these RFCs should have at least one straw poll to see how people are feeling, and that they respect people who are singleton but passionate objectors, but I’m open to see how people feel before codifying anything in the rule.
So, to get the conversation rolling, here are some straw polls to see how the wind is blowing, not official rule votes.
There should be gatekeeping on rule votes rather than anyone putting up whatever they want whenever they want
Yes
No
0voters
There should be gatekeeping on moderator nominations rather than anyone putting up whoever they want whenever they want
Yes
No
0voters
Nominations should be preceded by a request for comments that contains discussion and at least at least one straw poll to see which of option(s) are most popular prior to an up and down vote on the rule
Yes
No
0voters
When transitioning from RFC to vote, there should be a poll of thread participants on the final wording of the rule?
No
Yes, by a majority standard
Yes, by a 2/3 standard
Yes, by a consensus standard
Yes, by some other standard (please specify)
0voters
The number of mods and/or admins who need to sign off on a proposed rule vote in order for it to be considered official and binding is
Zero
One
A majority
Two thirds of them
All of them unanimously
Something else (please specify)
0voters
Votes on rule adoption by the community at large should be adopted by
A majority standard
A 60% standard
A 2/3 standard
A higher standard (please specify)
0voters
People are welcome to put up their own straw polls on their own ideas, new caveats, etc. ITT to see how people feel. I want to find a standard of gatekeeping that is broadly popular and that isn’t just me.
No idea why a rule that’s been mooted and voted and passed should need a mod stamp of approval. Presumably they’ll have made their objections clear during the mooting and if they couldn’t make their case, why do they get a veto?
this community loves undemocratic systems and constraints on voting, it has nothing to do with holding onto power when that power is threatened, not at all. why would you think that? no, this is what we all want and they’re just getting around to proposing it now and the timing is just a coincidence. stop thinking crazy. you’re crazy. this has zero to do with delegitimizing the establishment of an independent judiciary, ok?
Like, my poll on moderators not having lifetime terms was enormously popular as well. Not having a profanity filter was enormously popular. However, those were not Approved Polls and they weren’t written by an Approved Person. So that doesn’t count, gatekeepers need to declare it invalid and shut it down. Let the gatekeepers write the polls and stfu.
That you can’t read the thread and poll results is a you problem, not a me problem. The most popular proposal is, as a bare minimum, having a request for comments thread prior to an official vote. There is also overwhelming support for having a vote in the RFC on the final text of proposed rules. It also seems to be popular, albeit less so, to have at least one mod sign off on the proposal, but the particulars of requiring a majority of mods or no mods are currently the frontrunners.
Letting anyone put up for adoption rule proposals FOR LIFE that may be poorly worded or not let the community vote for popular options is not very popular. Sorry.
At no point have I suggested wanting to be The Gatekeeper, and I don’t think it would be popular.
Right. My poll for limiting the length of modship, composed by just me, was poorly worded and declared invalid by you. Your poll that you replaced it with, composed by just you, was very well worded and extremely valid. This is just science.
Your poll was a dismal failure because you did not solicit any community feedback, and you literally changed the rule proposal after votes had been cast. I think the process for my rule vote was better, as it actually used the community feedback from prior polls to draft more broadly popular text, but it’s not actually all that good. This thread is me trying to do better.
Why was my second poll thread worse than your poll thread? It’s because there is power in being able to word the poll in a specific way, and you wanted to have that power. And you didn’t want me to have it.
Are we talking gatekeepers as in a bunch of folk I have to solicit the agreement of before I can propose a rule or mod (a highly unlikely event)?
Or are we talking about an open process anyone can follow as long as they abide by the agreed upon rules, with gatekeepers merely enforcing that process?