Policy Talk:Consensus

Implementation of Policy

Since nobody has anything to say about this policy, I'm removing the "under construction" tag, and implementing it as is. --Scaletail 13:02, 7 February 2008 (CST)

Re-evaluation of current policy

Based on this discussion.

I want to re-visit the discussion regarding consensus. In the creation of the canon policy, Frabby, Scaletail and myself really went to great lengths and on a lot of (productive) tangents. When I crafted the draft policy, I had to spend a lot of time reading and re-reading posts for context, to make sure I addressed as many concerns as I could identify and hope that I represented them in the context they were intended, without placing too much of my own bias in the draft.

By experimenting with the categories discussion (especially with the last one, Character Article Flagging/Deletion), I created a 'form' where I could distill the discussion into the proposal, seek stances (not votes) and then clearly identify consensus issues in the consensus summary. The form does require actions that could easily be seen to be a 'straw poll,' but it also has the added benefit of 'allowing' an Editor to add a requirement that was missed in the proposal write-up (or disapproval of an element of the proposal). This would be addressed within the Stances portion of the Consensus Determination, which can then be added to the Consensus Summary.

The proper steps (as I see them), for determining consensus (when the intention is to distill a complicated or lengthened matter into something more clear), would be 1) allow the discussion to flow naturally, until either the conversation peters out or appears to hit loggerheads, 2) suggest a call for a Consensus Determination, 3) apply the Consensus Determination form, with clear goals and proposals laid out, for seven days minimum (but extended as proposal additions/concerns are raised), 4) invite comments via the Chatterweb, 5) summarize the consensus, 6) close/archive the Consensus Determination, 7) record the achievement of consensus on Minor News, 8) remove from Chatterweb, and 9) initiate the action, as required by the determination.

Another issue I see that needs to be addressed is the lack of active voices on BTW at this time. I'm absolutely fine with Editors that seek to focus on a certain aspect of the site and only that aspect, even though their participation elsewhere -especially in administration- would also be appreciated. We cannot force people to participate in BTW, nor can we demand their services in any particular area. But, likewise, some issues have to be dealt with in a timely manner by interested parties. As long as the opportunity exists to include others and within a reasonable amount of time, then any discussions on a topic that reach a consensus, of even only one or two people, must be respected. While they can be re-opened, there should be no need for a quorum or even support, if no one else speaks up on the issue. The creation of the Chatterweb has already achieved a measure of success (im my opinion), but the use of Chatterweb, HPG Newsbursts and/or Minor News are not required as a minimum measure of advertising an issue. MediaWiki employs multiple measures of allowing a User to monitor a subject (Recent Events, My Watchlist, My Contributions, as examples), so lack of participation by Users in a discussion (again, within a reasonable minimum length of time) does not indicate the topic cannot proceed with a consensus determination. I see this viewpoint as being a direct relation to Wikipedia's own essay 'silence implies consent.'

So, I seek comment on my opinion on a) allowing for formalizing Consensus Determination (when appropriate, but not necessary for every issue), b) the method and length of the Consensus Determination I originated and c) the addition to the policy of a caveat that 'silence equals consent.'

Thank you. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:12, 27 August 2008 (CDT)