Talk:Workgroup:style guidelines/Guideline policy proposal
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-proposal step? | 9 | 12:23, 30 September 2009 |
| Suggest use of term WikiEducator | 3 | 08:32, 27 August 2009 |
| Comment on policy proposal | 4 | 13:01, 24 August 2009 |
| Next steps | 2 | 08:03, 31 July 2009 |
There have been some "proposals" that rather than being definitive proposals, are more of discussions of the subject, at first. During this time, no specific guideline has been suggested, and so there is nothing to actually vote on. Examples of this are Use of Plurals and Spelling.
So my question is do we allow for this to occur during the 30 day discussion period, and if so, how do we deal with proposals that don't have specific guidelines at the opening of approvals? Do we just wait until one exists?
Or, do we allow for an indefinite period of a discussion of the subject before the official discussion period? When a guideline is actually defined, then it enters into the official process?
Hmmm, I see the dilemma. I vote for an unlimited period of discussion, until a guideline is clearly defined at which point it enters into the required 30-day discussion period.
I think I agree. I'm going to go ahead at change the wording of the draft policy to reflect this, and we can always continue to discuss this.
I added a paragraph to the discussion period section. Is there anywhere else you think should be altered for this purpose?
Sorry I didn't get to reviewing your revision until now. I just read over the whole policy, and it seemed to me that a mention of the discussion period could be made in the "Creating a proposal" section. I guess I'd just mention the idea that in some cases members will want to raise a topic for discussion without providing a stated guideline, additional info and examples (as suggested in the guideline template). The policy could then refer the reader to the more detailed explanation in the "Discussion period" section. This addition might help members who are new to the style guideline approval process feel more comfortable with proposing a topic for discussion.
Just some thoughts for consideration. (I realize that the policy has been tabled at the Council meeting that starts today--not great timing for suggesting changes. t's not a big issue and can certainly wait until later if you agree.)
And, Jesse, I just want to say this policy is really well done. I think it will serve us quite well going forward!
Alison
I think, because it isn't a substantive or significant change, it's just a clarification, I'll go ahead and add that to the section tomorrow. It's a great suggestion, Alison.
Also, thanks very much for the compliment, but save some of it for yourself, and the others that have help, especially Wayne!
Jesse
Argh. I think I picked a bad time to look at it (that's what I get for procrastinating). I'm not seeing anywhere I can smoothly add that in. I'm going to try again tomorrow, but in the mean time, why don't you have a go at it? I was thinking that the "recognising a need" section might be a good place, as well.
OK, I fussed around with the wording to integrate into the previous text the idea that we can start with a discussion and don't need a fully formed guideline to start the process. I ended up moving the rationale from the "Discussion period" section to the "Recognizing a need" section. I was pretty detailed in the "Creating a proposal" section (listing the sections that can be left blank) -- might be too much.
See what you think.
Also, I thought we should mention need to post a new proposed guideline to the main WE list in the "Creating a proposal" section (given reference to this in the "Discussion period" section), so I added that. I'm thinking that this could be done by suggester or facilitator? or should we say any member can do this?
The Policy for Community Workgroups defines a WikiEducator as any registered user of the WikiEducator websites. I started to make this editorial change, but now I wonder whether we need to define it somewhere first, so it can be referenced in other policies. I know this is a minor point, but I'm thinking issues of defining terms might come up in other policies (defined in one policy, used in lots of others).
Well, one thought would be to add it to the definitions section.
Thoughts?
The resolution on this is to use WikiEducator members to refer to registered users of any of the WikiEducator websites.
Sounds good to me! I'll put updating the policy wording on my to-do list for the day.
Great work! I am however not clear on the facilitators. I can understand their role and responsibilities, but I am not sure about who they are, how they are selected, etc.
I also have a minor point about the last paragraph. It states "facilitator may choose to table the suggestion". The problem is the word table which has a different meaning in American and British usage. (Wayne would probably know better than me on this). I think "set aside" might be better.
JohnWS 06:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you elaborate a bit on the facilitators detail? Since facilitators are a function of the workgroup, and the charter and policy draft would supplement each other, I'm wondering why you think it's necessary to include it in this document? Where/How would you include it? My preference would be to leave it out, or maybe to reference the charter, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Thanks so much for pointing "table" out to me! I don't know what I was thinking, I must have been very tired. That word is actually the opposite of what I was meaning to say. I replaced it with "dismiss". What do you think?
P.S. I did add a definition for "facilitator". What do you think?
Jesse, I think you are correct, the facilitators are explained in the charter and probably do not need to be in the policy. I was not linking the two in my mind (I had read the charter a while back). I do think including the definition and linking to the charter do help clear up any confusion.
As for the "table" problem, the word dismiss works fine.
JohnWS 08:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Both were great suggestions, John!
Hi Jesse,
This is an excellent start -- thanks so much for your efforts. I've done a little work tweaking the structure and headings in an attempt to get this into a policy format (whatever that means :-) ).
The next step is to announce the development of this policy draft to the community on the main WE list. I'd recommend that we work to a suggested time frame, eg:
- Draft policy completed by 10 August
- Further discussion and refinements till 20 August
- Draft version of the policy ready for submission to Council by 1 September
We need to review the draft charter of the workgroup to see if it accommodates the needs/requirements of this policy development.
Given your leadership in getting the style guidelines initiative off the ground -- I think that you should make the announcement to the community on the development of this policy.
Well done Jesse -- this is a great piece of work.
Cheers Wayne
Hehe, I'm not really familiar with all this organisational proposing and whatnot. I'm much more of a doer, in fact I'm pretty confident I'll never take an ed administration job because I'd rather avoid the paperwork.
I think those dates are manageable. I was actually hoping I'd have the first draft finished by tonight. Should I make the announcement even now, when the first draft isn't complete?
I think the charter sections we'll have to look at are the bit on the facilitator's responsibilities (I've already added one bit) and the "ground rules" section. The last one, I think, needs to wait until we've got the draft finished, so we have the whole picture to look at and consider.
Thanks for the complements, Wayne. I really don't know what I'm doing here. :P
Hi Jesse,
You're a wiki natural! I'm no expert on these things either, but like yourself, I care about what we're doing and what it can mean for education globally.
You're call when you want to announce the first draft --- I'll be adding bits when I find gaps in my schedule and other committments.
Cheers Wayne
