This needs to be developed more; what "staff approval" actually entails and whatnot.

it's not vague it's just wrong lmao. like this isn't what was discussed. we don't need a more formal defined way on how exactly to get staff approval though, literally just replacing google drive with what we actually discussed

I do not believe this matches up with what was discussed.

As others have pointed out, this policy does not outline what was agreed upon on the thread, and I find it to be too vague to be useful in application.

most everyone in the discussion thread was in favor of restricting google docs links on the forums — that's not what's done by this policy, by my reading.

This needed workshopping. The wording here is far too nonspecific.

Policy much too vague.

this policy is way too vague as is.

Echoing what Greebo said. First we discuss the process to "staff-approve" it, then we approve.

I don't believe the wording of this policy follows from the discussion that was had, where the overwhelming sentiment was to ban all links to Google docs. This suggests the links may pass staff approval, but sets no criteria for such a process.

Either a flat ban, or a clear process for approval.

Changing vote, upon a closer read of the post and the other recent comments.

I'm not super into the wording of the latter half of this policy but that's an issue which can be amended later in response to emergent alternatives.

Should we add the following text to the site rules

"All links to Google Drive or other document cloud storage sites on the wiki or the forums must be staff approved"

||~ ||~ YES ||~ NO || || Enact policy || X || X ||

Voting will go on for one week