When did this come in?
That’s in my proposal from 3 days ago. That’s an attempt to balance the lack of consensus on these questions:
The way that I’ve written the proposal, a rule would be able to go to a biding vote if supported by 2/3rds majority in the RFC poll, regardless of how mods vote on it.
If mods lend their support to a proposal, then it can go to a binding vote with a simple majority in the RFC poll.
That would give mods some additional power (but not absolute power) in deciding which rules go to a full vote.
Why can’t we just not give mods additional power, though? And I understand it’s by a narrow margin, but why is a specific version of a general option that was rejected 53-47 being included at all? Didn’t it lose?
6 Likes
The current proposal is just my attempt to synthesize the various feedback into an overall procedure, and I don’t have any special authority over the rules. If you or others have feedback, I think it would be useful to say specifically what you would revise about the proposal (or give an alternative proposal). E.g., in your case, it sounds like you want to strike some words from the proposal, but I’m not sure if you’re advocating for a simple majority threshold on RFC votes or a 2/3rds majority threshold on RFC votes.
So just writing out what language you would like will help make things clear.
1 Like
Thank you for doing this and trying to push the process forward/faster.
While I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the proposal, I think it did a good job synthesizing the views expressed in this thread and will gladly vote Yes.
Of course, a concern of mine (and maybe others) is that this process extends out the time before which we have any new mods or implement mod term limits. Sounds like we’d need a vote on your proposal to make a binding RFC poll, then the binding RFC poll, then a RFC thread on mods, then a vote on a proposal on mod voting/selection process, then a binding vote on mod voting/selection process, then a thread on actual mod selections/voting. That will take weeks/months??
4 Likes
I think it’s somewhat paralysing to have the same standard for wording as for final vote and would be fine with simple majority to proceed to a binding vote. There shouldn’t be any special mod voting or anything like that, imo.
~75% of voters favour either a two-thirds or a 60% threshold to make a rule binding, so I think there should be a run-off vote with those two options.
1 Like
I prefer mods don’t get a special vote. Don’t care about the threshold between half or two thirds.
And like Flynn said, that part lost in the earlier vote.
3 Likes
OK. Sounds like it makes sense to keep debate on the proposal open for a bit, so I will withdraw my request to put this to a vote for the time being. I’m about to go out for a walk in the snow, but I’ll check back in later.
In the mean time, others should feel free to make additional straw polls or show how they would revise the working draft of the proposal. Again, I don’t have any special authority on this process – just trying to move things forward.
2 Likes
Why do the admins handle that again?
So that we don’t end up with the confusing crap where random people are posting polls with whatever language that they want and then using that as their mandate to make xyz change. If it isn’t a blessed poll, the vote isn’t binding.
2 Likes
Are you asking why Admin should be the account that starts various threads/polls?
I think we need some “official” and “neutral” account to do so. That’s part of the “gatekeeping” that the forum seems to want viz a viz new rules proposals and votes.
1 Like
Ok, got it
I also don’t know if mods can actually make banners? Or maybe I just don’t know how and have never wanted to.
@econophile I really appreciate your synthesis of the general sentiment and worthy attempt at reconciling what appear to be two pretty distinct camps on mod signoff.
1 Like
We do need to codify stuff that admins do imo. Primary job is the technical stuff. That stuff makes it very difficult for admin to be democratic at all. That makes it very important that an admin needs to use as little judgement as possible in stuff like this.
2 Likes
Riskyflush can - It’s possible, I just don’t know how
I think it’s highly desirable to have banner announcements for binding rule votes so as to alert the substantial portion of the forum that doesn’t want to get their hands dirty in the quibbling to a final vote. As such, there is necessarily a final gatekeeper, as someone who can make banners has to actually agree to make the banner.
I propose that as a practical matter, a mod or admin is necessary to post a banner, but the only reasonable grounds to object to doing so are to pass it off to another party who can (too busy, no idea how, or whatever), or that the RFC process as ratified here has not been completed, or that it was not followed in good faith. Any objection on the latter two grounds does not terminate the rule proposal but instead must be met with a list of what was not done, and clear and attainable steps for what needs to be finished, at which point they’ll happily post the rule vote and banner. Participants in the RFC process are welcome to shop around for a mod who will post the banner if they meet an objection, but they should disclose to alternative mods or admins that they are doing so and what the first objection was.
That, and either a 60% or 2/3 vote from thread participants on proposed final text, I think are sufficient, but I’d hear other ideas if people have any.
For the vote on final text within the RFC, we should use
- A 60% standard
- A 2/3 standard
0 voters
Also, any objection to requiring that any proposed vote on the final text should @ all people who’ve posted in the RFC thread in question?
I think that will make the rule-making process more difficult to monitor. E.g., someone could accidentally leave off a poster and it not get noticed until later, giving someone a reason to object to the whole process after it’s been approved. And then some admin or mod will be required to sort that out.
Leaving RFC poll open in the thread for a week should give interested parties sufficient notice and time to vote if they wish to do so.
Fair. Perhaps just ask the person posting such a poll to do so as a courtesy?