Pre-proposal step?

Jump to: navigation, search

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?

Jesse Groppi (talk)10:01, 27 August 2009

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.

ASnieckus (talk)10:09, 1 September 2009

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.

Jesse Groppi (talk)07:43, 2 September 2009

I added a paragraph to the discussion period section. Is there anywhere else you think should be altered for this purpose?

Jesse Groppi (talk)08:43, 2 September 2009

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!


ASnieckus (talk)15:28, 9 September 2009

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 Groppi (talk)14:10, 10 September 2009

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.

Jesse Groppi (talk)15:58, 11 September 2009

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?

ASnieckus (talk)06:49, 13 September 2009

Good work with the rewrite! According to what is in the draft policy, a new proposal would be announced by either the suggester or a facilitator. I wouldn't want to prevent another member from doing it, but I wouldn't want to encourage it because the member may not know all the appropriate information to include in the announcement, and would be unlikely to recognise a need to create a digest announcement (when more than one proposal needs it). A facilitator would recognise the need for a digest and know all the important info, whilst the suggester would know all the info and announcing his own proposal would alleviate the need for digest announcements. What do you think?

Jesse Groppi (talk)02:44, 30 September 2009

Thanks. Good, I think we should go with saying that either the suggester or facilitator will annoumce a new guideline.... It doesn't completely preclude someone else, just encourages one of these two.

ASnieckus (talk)13:23, 30 September 2009