Project Foundation Vote

DO NOT VOTE ON THIS YET, the list of items to vote on is being assembled.

If you can think of anything that needs to be voted on that isn't on this list yet, edit it in.

Okay. We need to have a vote on some of the things we have been talking about, to officially declare what has been decided and what has not.

I am not compiling everything discussed everywhere. We will need additional vote threads. But these are the things that I can immediately gather together.

The items listed below are ones that most people generally have said that they would support.

Vote individually on each item, or collectively on an entire proposition or section as you see fit.


SECTION 1: Member Status


SECTION 1: PROPOSITION 1: Contributor vs Non-Contributor Status

The system for us to follow for what members can or cannot contribute.

ITEM 1: The application will be made considerably simpler for people to join as regular members, to be rewritten at the Admin team's discretion.

ITEM 2:
1. Members will be split into two categories: Contributors and Members.
2. Members will be defined as people with a username who are able to post on the forums, leave comments on articles, and write articles in their sandbox/profile.
3. Contributors will be defined as those who may also post articles to the wiki without review being required(at a point to be determined later, if this passes).

ITEM 3: Members who write articles on their profile may submit them to a "Slush Pile", which Senior Staff sifts through and up-checks or down-checks to be accepted and posted to the wiki(the details of which are up to Mackenzie to implement).

ITEM 4: If a Member submits (x) article(s) that is/are accepted, they are moved to Contributor status. (contingent on S1:P1:I2 passing. number of articles needed will be determined later if this item passes).

ITEM 5: Current members will be "Grandfathered" in, in that anyone who has submitted the minimum required quantity of work to the site will, once they have made an account and been confirmed as the owner of the article(s) they wrote, be automatically given Contributor status.


SECTION 1: PROPOSITION 2: Senior Staff Status

The system for us to follow on the new site for adding people to Senior Staff.

ITEM 1:
1. Staff systematically look at all prolific/highly-rated writers, and/or people who have good critique.
2. Staff nominate people regularly from this pool for Senior Staff.
3. The nominating staff member states the reason they nominated that individual.
4. Staff members carefully consider, and vote as to whether or not to add them on, providing a reason why/why not.
5. If they pass, they are added to senior staff.
6. If they are rejected, people identify the things that they could/should do to become better members and potential Staff members in the future.

ITEM 2: A simple majority of the Staff who vote will determine whether or not the member is added to Senior Staff. (may be redundant pending current discussion on the forums, remove if a decision is reached)

(This is very similar to the system we already do, the difference is that we would systematically LOOK for people to add to senior staff on a regular basis, instead of just suggesting them once in a while. Also, it would be non-kosher to vote without providing a reason why or why not.)

ITEM 3: An application process will be created for people who actively desire to become Senior Staff, the details of which will be worked out if this Item passes.

ITEM 4: A nomination process will be created for members of the community to suggest people for consideration as Senior Staff, the details of which will be worked out if this Item passes.



SECTION 2: Articles and Voting


SECTION 2: PROPOSITION 1: Immortalizing Articles

Articles that are "Immortalized" will be kept permanently on the site no matter what the rating becomes

ITEM 1: If an article is determined to have significant merit, and to be of great historical value to the site, then it may be nominated to be voted on for "Immortalized" status(or another term to be chosen as desired).

ITEM 2: "Immortalized" status will be defined as being exempt from deletion votes, regardless of current rating.

ITEM 3: "Immortalized" status will also be defined as being protected from alteration or deletion by any party other than the proven original author, determined by Administrator consensus that the person is in fact the author in question.

ITEM 4: A 2/3rds majority vote of the Administrators who participate in the vote will be necessary for an article to be given "Immortalized" status, and no fewer than 75% of the Administrators must have voted for it to be accepted.


SECTION 2: PROPOSITION 2: Member vs Contributor voting

This is designed to make it so we have two separate votes, the Member votes and the Contributor votes, and both of these will influence whether or not something gets deleted. We also will still have the Staff deletion vote. This creates a 3 party system: the Staff, the Members, and the Contributors. For something to be deleted, two of those groups will have to agree that they want it gone.

ITEM 1: Articles will have two separate fields for votes: Member and Contributor. (contingent upon S1:P1:I2 passing)

ITEM 2: If, after 24 hours, the Contributor vote on an article has reached the deletion value(currently -10), but the Member vote is still above the deletion value(X), a Staff vote on deletion must be started.

ITEM 3: If, after 24 hours, the Member vote on an article has reached the deletion value(X), but the Contributor vote is still above the deletion value(currently -10), then the Staff has the option, but not the obligation, to begin a deletion vote at their discretion.

ITEM 4: If a Staff deletion vote results in consensus to delete the article, then it is removed from the main listing and sent back to the submitter's sandbox.

ITEM 5: If BOTH the Member vote AND Contributor vote fall below their respective deletion values, the article is to be removed and sent back to the submitter's sandbox after 24 hours without a Staff vote, except in the case of "Immortalized" articles.

ITEM 6: If NEITHER the Member vote NOR the Contributor vote fall below their respective deletion values, Staff may not begin a deletion vote, nor delete the article, unless it is in violation of site rules such as Plagiarism, Trolling, etc, or the original author wishes it removed.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License