1. Who gets a vote:
1a. Major website changes: All staff, definitely. There is no need to cut out senior staff or limit it to admins at this time.
1b. Minor website changes: All staff.
1c. Changes to rules: All staff. Just mods & admins would be acceptable too, since only mods & admins enforce rules. I don't think senior staff automatically makes you moderative material. On the other hand, what's the harm in having more potential input? Plus hearing an argument for a particular rule change from senior staff can give weight to a potential moderative nomination, since we're probably gonna continue to pick mods from the senior staff pool.
1d. People joining senior staff: All staff, definitely.
1e. People becoming mods/admins: I would say all staff, or at minimum all staff for mods/admins, and all mods/admins for admin promotion. Voting from the people who've worked with them.
1f. Voting on banning. Mods & Admins is fine here, but I would also support all staff.
1g. Other: Disciplinary action comes to mind as well. Agreeing with Quik. Same rank or higher votes on disciplinary action. If it's a senior staff member, everyone can vote. If a moderator, then all mods/admins. If an admin, all admins. I'd be fine with all staff voting on mods too - only admins voting on admins is the big thing. (Regular staff input would be fine, but not in a voting thread.) For the Head Admin, only admins.
2. What percentage of the people who vote on each issue do we need for that issue to pass? Simple majority for most things not considered 'serious'. For a serious matter, 2/3 majority. Note I also agree with Quik that it's 'of those who have voted by the deadline.'
I am also fine with Scantron's proposal for 2.
3. What percentage/number of the people who are able to vote on an issue must have voted before it is considered to have been decided? This is sorta similar to the above question, innit? :p
Major issues requiring a vote need 50% of active staff to weigh in, so long as they do so within a time limit.
As for minor issues requiring a vote… Honestly, we don't need to stick a percentage to everything. Let's say agreement of a minimum three staff members (a net vote, so a vote against counts as -1), but decision must be made on 05. The numbers here can be tweaked - I picked three because it's easy to remember.
And let me propose an additional "rule of three" for decisions deemed very minor.
The Rule of Three Proposal
- For very minor site-wide issues, a "net +3" informal vote from staff members, which must include one active admin in agreement, and (if applicable) one resident expert on the topic in agreement, passes. "Net +3" examples include 3 of 3 in favor, 3 of 5 in favor, or 4 of 6 in favor. Decision may be made in staff chat, hence "informal". Decisions may be reversed similarly. The person enacting the decision must be able to provide the names of agreeing staff members if the decision is controversial. A successful decision must be recorded on 05 to allow for dissenting voices. Major disagreement means the vote should be taken more formally on 05. Major disagreement means more than 3 people strongly disagreeing, or the admin opinions coming down in majority opposition.
- For very minor issues affecting one guide/article/piece, a "net +3" informal vote from staff members passes. I'm talking line edits here, changes to official guides, etc. Same caveats as above apply, except a successful decision does not need recording on 05. In case of article line edits, original author may veto & revert at any time.
Here I did pick the number three for a specific reason - for ease of getting consensus on stuff that is honestly just trivial, while also preventing two people from just PMing each other and making a bajillion minor edits with no disagreement to the annoyance of all. Three is the minimum number which you can use to say you have a 'consensus'.
I also would propose that admins act as tiebreakers. In tie-breaker cases, if admins themselves can't pass the 'simple majority' or '2/3 majority' test, then it doesn't pass.
For all that I just said, I'm also fine with Scantron's answer for 3, with the addition of the rule of three thing.
4. What types of things require discussion vs things that can be voted on immediately? Require discussion on almost everything that doesn't have a screamingly obvious premise. An exception would be things like votes for promotion (no one needs that concept explained).
Trivial shit can be dealt with using the rule of three suggested above. Problems that will get worse can be addressed at a faster time frame, assigned by admins.
5. How long should a discussion go before it is put to a vote? Second everything Quik said: 24 hours, extendable by any admin. BUT, discussion can go on as long as anyone cares to add to it, even after the vote is done (but wouldn't affect decisions made unless a new vote is called). Also, there should be no problem with just extending the deadline to a week or three automatically for stuff like the management overhaul thread. (Of course, the overhaul thread is the biggest decision the site has made since the mass edit, so it should be counted as an outlier.)
5a. Who can create a vote thread? Anyone who can vote in it.
Scantron's answer for 5. is also something I can get on board with.
6. How long should a vote go before it is considered to have ended? Once again seconding Quik. 48 hours, extendable by any admin. For major issues that don't have a deadline, a minimum of a week.
6a. If there's a specific requirement on how many people have to vote, let's make it low. Maybe as low as three staff members including at least one admin. In practice, three staff members should never end up passing a major thing, but if that comes up, we address it as essentially a failure of staff to be sufficiently active. With this low requirement, no need to extend the vote - it fails by default.
Another note. If this is a case of voting on something like directly affects a single user, then a failed vote means that the most favorable popular outcome for the user is enacted. This should encourage people to weigh more on user disciplinary actions - and users don't need to be hanging in limbo.
6b. The consequences for staff members failing to vote is simple: they didn't get a say in the decision that passed. Now. If staff members regularly don't weigh in on discussion OR vote, then yes, there should be consequences, decided on a case-by-case basis. An example would be discounting the votes of typically absentee people if their votes are preventing a majority from forming.
6c. Abstaining is acceptable.
7. Of course absent staff should be dropped to "Inactive". Staff should be considered inactive if they do not engage/interact with the community AND/OR staff on a regular basis. For example, Gears counts as active because he regularly interacts with the community with meaningful posts, but Iceberg would be considered inactive because he posts one short post a month and doesn't really engage anyone.
Now. Regarding the votes of people who return and immediately vote on something, the following stipulations apply:
- Their votes still count, BUT
- Their votes are discounted in case of tiebreaking issues, AND
- They are required to engage in discussion for their vote to count if the vote is controversial.
The fact is, having outside perspectives of certain senior users is valuable, even if they aren't in touch with the community. But if they don't share that perspective, they are as good as useless, so no popping in to vote against in one or two lines and then vanishing again into the mists from whence they came.
7a. Inactive staff's presences don't count.
7b. When to remove inactive staff members from staff? Never, without a vote. I would lean towards 'never' anyway. They should be moved to MIA though.
7c. No specific point. I would say three admins - or three mods/admins - must agree to drop someone down a grade. Again: Inactivity should be determined by engagement with staff and/or the community, on a case-by-case basis.
7d. Of course staff should be able to go on sabbatical with no consequences. This is why I advocate a case-by-case basis for this stuff. We don't need to rules lawyer that much, honestly.
Another note: I agree that we have major problems in our decision-making process, but I am concerned that we might go crazy and enact a whole lot of red tape that makes decision making difficult as fuck. The 'rule of three' stuff I proposed is aimed at making it easier to make easily-reversed and low-consequence decisions. In fact, I feel the rule of three proposal is the most important part of this post, so weigh in on that in particular, please.
