CZ Talk:Proposals/New

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

Ask around for someone

How does a proposer ask around for someone (a "driver") to take over a proposal?

Would it help if simple instructions were placed in a link here? --Graham Proud 20:23, 22 February 2008 (CST)

Proposal queue discussions

This is in response to the conversation Robert and Larry are having at the bottom of the queue page, I just wanted to get it off that page so it can be cleaned up. I think Robert is on the right track - perhaps add a link to the bottom of each proposal template that will send the reader to a discussion/talk page centered around it. I do not think that this will imply that formal decisions are made on this page, as long as it is clearly stated on the guidelines page the procedure for taking a proposal that is accepted through this mechanism and getting it forwarded to the Editorial Council or some other decision making entity.

Also, if this sort of system is going to succeed, there need to be some guidelines on how it is determine a proposal is worthy of approval. Do X amount of citizens need to come out in support of it? or a ratio of Yay:Nay votes? Would there be some kind of mediator? My concern would be, that like in many other places, the proposal will get discussed endlessly, with no result, lay dormant for a few months, and then be resurrected only to have the same thing happen over, and over again (such as the naming of history articles). --Todd Coles 16:14, 9 February 2008 (CST)

I do agree in many ways. I think the idea was to have one central place where members could post proposals and have a proper chit chat about it. I'd strongly be against the introduction of voting on these proposals; Allow the Editorial Council to make the structural changes, as they are needed from time to time. Voting on things brings out the worst aspects of Wikipedia; It starts off as canvassing, then develops into popularity contests and eventually ends as an ego trip. Denis Cavanagh 16:18, 9 February 2008 (CST)

What if the Editorial Council stalls and stalls with discussion and no outcome? --Robert W King 16:20, 9 February 2008 (CST)
Since one of the unique aspects of this project is expert oversight, I think we need to put our faith in them to resolve issues such as this. If the EC were to stall and stall, people will begin to lose that faith, and slowly walk away.
And while a vote might not be the best method, I do think we need some kind of mechanism to trigger the EC or whatever entity that this proposal has been well thought out... because there is the potential for tons of proposals to be made, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect they have the time to sort through each and every one. --Todd Coles 16:53, 9 February 2008 (CST)
I'm a huge fan of the silent vote, but I probably have no say in how the outcome will judged. --Robert W King 16:19, 9 February 2008 (CST)

The same problem exists for the mob aspect. The Editorial Council allows a smaller number of people come up with a more workable solution. P.S- Is there any more talk on reforming the kind of people who are allowed to be in it? IE, more authors etc.? Denis Cavanagh 16:25, 9 February 2008 (CST)

I have no idea. --Robert W King 16:36, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Without addressing all the above questions, I just wanted to explain my objection to having discussion on the page itself: the whole idea of the queue is to organize proposals, and keep them moving along. I agree that there needs to be a place for each proposal where the public can comment. I am not addressing where that should happen, and you should feel free to make proposals about that, if you like (I would suggest using the Forums for doing so, though). The purpose of the proposals queue/system isn't to completely alter CZ's governance, structures of which are already in place. So, it makes absolutely no part of the proposal that the Editorial Council should not take up matters that are within in its purview. (As to the latest proposal, look at the E.C. homepage and the latest resolution.) It is simply to centralize the initial proposal locale, and make sure things continue. Moreover, it makes no part of my original suggestion (in a forums thread) that we will "vote" on proposals here; to say so is to propose to remove authority that is vested already in the Editorial Council, the Constabulary, the Editor-in-Chief and Executive Committee, and (for many smaller matters) whoever takes the initiative.

For more clarification of what I, at least, have in mind, see my latest comments on this thread: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1551.0.html --Larry Sanger 21:36, 9 February 2008 (CST)

moved from proposal page

We shouldn't have responses to proposals in the queue...it'll just get too messy. We need to discuss some basic questions about how this system should work before we start designing willy-nilly. Though the general outlines are looking quite good! --Larry Sanger 14:33, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Maybe the responses should go in their own subdirectory and each proposal should have a number. Like, proposal #0001, and the discussion should go in CZ:Proposals/0001 --Robert W King 14:36, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Maybe, maybe not. This might imply that the proposals are decided here in the proposals system. They won't be, not entirely; they're decided finally elsewhere. No proposal will receive a final decision via discussion that happens on these proposals pages. This is just a central project management page. The proposal might be decided by the Editorial Council, for example. --Larry Sanger 14:46, 9 February 2008 (CST)

See below for comments on the following two proposals

Improve general heading

The heading "Join! Help us create the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base. The general public and experts collaborate, using their real names. A new knowledge society." does not seem to be a good example of the kind of writing to be expected here. Is the last sentence a sentence? I propose, but do not know how to accomplish, the head be changed to something like:

"Join us, and help us create the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base. Where the general public and experts collaborate, using our real names, creating a new society of knowledge." Thomas Mandel 02:00, 9 February 2008 (CST)

How about either of these two phrases?

  • "Join us, both experts and the general public, using our real names, to help create the world's most trusted encyclopedia and a new society of knowledge."

or

"Join our new society of knowledge, consisting of experts and the general public, using our real names, and help create the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base that if free to world."

Perhaps something like:

  1. Like current, but with dash instead of period: "Join! Help us create the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base. The general public and experts collaborate, using their real names - a new knowledge society."
  2. Eliminate "that if [sic] free to world" from one of David's proposals: "Join our new society of knowledge, consisting of experts and the general public, using our real names, and help create the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base."

Warren Schudy 13:58, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Make "beta" tag a real tag

THe "beta" tag seems to be lost. By simply adding a chain linking the tag to the what looks like a key, can find it a home.

Thomas Mandel 02:03, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Uh, what's a "tag"? Is it a synonym for "category"? I don't understand your proposal. Warren Schudy 13:45, 9 February 2008 (CST)

He's talking about a prior graphic that was used for the logo. --Robert W King 13:50, 9 February 2008 (CST)
It's this Logo400grbeta small.png is what he's talking about, versus the logo that's in the upper left. --Robert W King 14:02, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Why the above two proposals were removed

The above two proposals were removed because they make trivial proposals which simply don't need to be handled through this system. They are better handled on other pages or by approaching people directly. The proposals system should be reserved for relatively consequential matters. --Larry Sanger 11:19, 11 February 2008 (CST)

There's a bug

See the template page in the "sample" area, "Driver" and "next step" seem to have the same variable. --Robert W King 15:15, 11 February 2008 (CST)

good grief!

I had two windows open, as suggested, and deleted all the stuff on *one* of them, obviously, then carefully saved *that* one by mistake. Sorry! Hayford Peirce 18:29, 21 May 2008 (CDT)

No problem (our ever-vigilant hackers saw it right away) - just giving you a hard time! :-) J. Noel Chiappa 18:56, 21 May 2008 (CDT)
I think I have made the whole thing a little more Hayford-proof, using some magic spells I just deciphered from the source for MediaWiki yesterday. :-) (Sorry, Hayford, couldn't resist!) J. Noel Chiappa 08:09, 22 May 2008 (CDT)