Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial comments

This is a draft; please comment here or post suggested redrafts here, and I will implement consensus changes to the wording. If I'm away and there is a clear consensus for a change, please go ahead and edit it without me, but make sure that enough people have had a chance to comment (unless it's an obvious minor fix).

I still plan to do three things but wanted to launch this without any more delays. I need to:

  • link the 2004 RfC that confirmed Raul in his role
  • find and link at least one of the informal WT:FAC discussions (I can remember at least two) that I mention as reconfirming Raul, and make sure they conform to my memory of them
  • Most importantly I want to draft another wording of the RfC that fits Noleander's outline, as that has gained some support.

In the meantime, please comment away. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made a change. If you think it's inaccurate, let's discuss. You stated that Raul's term continues until the community dismisses him, and described it as the status quo. I substituted a quote from Raul regarding his term from the 2007 discussion, "Nowhere does it say that the term is infinite, but at the same time, nowhere does it say that it is not infinite either." It is simply something left open by prior discussions, to say that the situation is the status quo is to imply a prior decision or consensus that doesn't exist. I inserted a cn tag as reminder to link to the community discussion, though I think "reconfirmed" or "confirmed' are too strong words for an informal process.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough; I certainly knew I needed links there (as stated above) and the wording there does need consensus, as you say. Let's see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I reverted myself upon re-reading the instructions. Here is the diff: this. Is there any great objection? I dislike to do anything which might offend.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; I appreciate it. No doubt others will weigh in. (And if anyone can find the links that would be a great help.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide a direct link to Raul's comments? And I'm not wild about the "The featured article director is not an elected position." It seems to me that this is what we are here to settle, and Raul's confirmation may be deemed an election in some form. I would suggest leaving that out. It might be better, after Raul's statement, to avoid a narrative which may be disagreed with and perhaps just provide a list of events with links, such as Raul's confirmation, Sandy's appointment (and the discussion) and so forth. Simply because anything that is deemed an interpretation of events may be argued over.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It's been almost a day, hope you don't mind, it's all a draft anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, though I'd like to hear from others before we agree on the wording. Your "citation needed" tag is correct; I haven't been able to find those discussions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of leaders

These RfC questions make the assumption that FA leadership should be a single person. A question confirming this leadership by directorship (even if it relies on the delegate system), or whether leadership should be the responsibility of more than one person, would be a more fundamental question than focusing on Raul654. maclean (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This would seem to fit with Noleander's suggested approach. I have some reservations about this, as expressed in that section, but would like to see others flesh it out as an alternative to the wording I've offered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, my reservations are not about the appropriateness of that question for the RfC -- that's a matter for the community to decide. My reservations are about efficiency and ambiguity; I expressed them on WT:FAC a couple of days ago in a similar context. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone else see the "bananas" vandalism at Director? It doesn't appear in the edit window. Is it hidden in some template? maclean (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a dab page, and I don't see "bananas" on it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How do we measure the FA Director's performance?

One question I would like to see added to Nolelander's series of questions:

(2a) What metrics will be used to measure the featured article director's performance of his/her responsibilities?

Part of the problem I've seen in these leadership discussions is that there seems to be no consensus over how we would measure Raul's performance as FA director. Some editors clearly felt that Raul was underperforming; others felt he was doing a fine job. There seemed to be no common frame of reference; the two sides clearly did not have the same expectations of Raul and/or did not agree what level of performance was considered adequate. I believe we should discuss means to measure the FA director's performance of his/her responsibilities so that in future discussions we can at least have that common frame of reference. –Grondemar 18:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like needless bureaucracy. There is no consensus that the FA Director needs poking—what we are seeing is entirely to be expected as it occurs in all areas of life, particularly where talented people with strong opinions congregate. If we had a set of performance criteria, we would spend hours arguing about it, or about something else. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
If the director's job is simply to close nominations and select the TFA, what metrics are available? maclean (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Editorial judgment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requested

  • The following are hypothetical viewpoints which may be held by editors. How could they be expressed, on the basis of the presently proposed RfC questions?
    • "Raul should be reconfirmed, but with a redefined role"
    • "I am opposed to the principle of an elected director, but feel that someone other than Raul should be appointed"
  • There seems to be an assumption that, should we move to an elected director, Raul will be elected. Otherwise, why: "Raul654's tenure if the FA director is to be elected"?
  • I think it should be made clearer that the questions listed as "alternative 1" represent an alternative approach to the RfC, rather than additional questions, and that if this alternative is adopted, these questions will need to be reframed.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest labeling them as alternatives, and leaving blank templates (or the equivalent) for people to propose their own. Several people have suggested that if someone proposes a reasonable compromise, it may be widely accepted just to put an end to this discussion. We should make it easy for such to be proposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't include the two additional options Brian suggests because I couldn't see a good way to frame them and I saw little demand for them in the conversation, though I think there has been at least some suggestion in those directions. I think they both need a little clarification before we could add them.
For "Raul should be reconfirmed, but with a redefined role", is the implication that he is reconfirmed but a subsequent RfC (or less formal discussion) would lead to a redefined role? I didn't include something like this because I felt it wasn't at all clear what it would mean -- in practical terms, the only difference between this and 1a/1b is that it signals an intention to redefine the role. I think if there is a consensus here that role redefinition should be an equal option with the others, then that would lead us to Noleander's approach, where we define the role first. We can simply add a 1c that is framed as you state it, but I think there would be a lot of uncertainty about that option. Alternatively, we could elevate Noleander's approach to a 3, mutually exclusive with 1 and 2, so that those who want to take that route can support that option. Would that work?
I omitted "I am opposed to the principle of an elected director, but feel that someone other than Raul should be appointed" because I have a hard time seeing how to frame this to make sense without a subsequent election. If we want to replace Raul, it seems exceedingly unlikely that there would be consensus on a single nominee without something resembling an election. I think discussions on elections could lead to the conclusion that the election would essentially be an appointment, and that Raul's replacement would have the same standing that Raul currently does, not being subject to elections, but that seems like an outcome that 2a/2b could reasonably lead us to. Would it help to change the wording of 2a/2b to make it clear that the outcome of the election discussions could be an appointment, rather than periodic elections, if the community wished it?
I think the "tenure" wording was left over from the first section when I copied it. Fixed.
Re alternative 1: Wehwalt, if you would add whatever text you think would clarify the intention there, per Brian's comments, that would be helpful; and perhaps also add whatever you're thinking of along the lines of templates for additional proposed wordings? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
In the archived talkpage discussion, I raised the question whether we should first discuss the nature of director's role, before considering how best to fill it. Noelander's suggestions arose from that. I now feel that, whatever logic might suggest, we have to get the main leadership issue out of the way before any meaningful discussion on duties and responsibilities, etc, can happen. Such a discussion might last weeks or months, and the present atmosphere of exhaustion is inconducive to rational judgement. My concern, however, is that the first question as presently worded seems to cut off any further consideration of the director's role, since the proposal specifies no change in his duties. The wording also elevates Raul's summary of what he does into a "definition". May I suggest that Question 1 be reworded along the lines: "Raul654 is reconfirmed as FA director. The range and nature of the director's duties will be discussed at a later date". I envisage that date being several months down the line, which would provide plenty of time for proper consideration of the question; "What do we want our director to do?". Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
@Brian. That sounds reasonable. Why don't you modify along the lines you propose? @Mike: I am not wonderful with templates. I will be out today but expect to edit a bit tonight. If no one has added it by the time I get back, I will add it. I suggest that we go live Tuesday 0001 (I think I will be back before the end of WikiSunday, so that allows 24 hours).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with the wording Brian proposes, but I would like to hear a couple more opinions before we make the change -- the last thing we want is for the RfC to get bogged down in arguments about wording. I'd also like to understand what "will" means in "will be discussed"; is that a commitment to hold another RfC? The intention of the current section "General discussion of the FA director role" was intended to provide a shortcut for that discussion -- it's nonbinding in any way as there are no support/oppose sections, but it might provide input that the director would heed. Hence perhaps "will" really means that the community retains the option to have that discussion. Similarly I think we need a few more people to comment before we can go live -- Tuesday would be OK if everyone does comment, and there are no issues, but I think it's more likely we'll have to wait a few more days. In particular, I don't want to abandon Noleander's approach without hearing from more people -- it received some positive comments in the earlier discussions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with all, particularly changing the first question to what's in bold above. What we may find is that, if Raul retains the job, both the questions and the urgency level change for a lot of people, and this process won't be as hard. Also, if Raul is retained with the idea that there will be future discussion on the nature of the role, it gives Raul and his team a chance to ask questions and make adjustments outside of a formal RFC; for all we know, the community will then be happy with the way things are going and won't feel a need to try to enforce changes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with this proposal, because 1) it leaves no room for those who agree that a) Raul is re-confirmed and b) no change to the role as defined is needed, and 2) it keeps a shadow hanging over FAC. If after Raul is reconfirmed, folks want to redefine his role (that is, fix something if it isn't found to be broken), then of course they're free to continue RFCing. I'm struck that the longer this goes on, the more it can be made to appear that there is a problem at FAC, which most feedback has failed to confirm. I'm not sure who benefits from continuing this process, but I'm sure FAC doesn't, and the longer this goes on, the longer the page will stall under lack of review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, I am not expressing any personal view here, and certainly don't want to prolong this process any more than you do. I worry about the state of FAC; I've invested a lot of time in it (and I haven't stopped reviewing during this shenanigans). I have been appalled by the nature of some of the attacks in the past few months, and by the possible damage done to the process. I was merely trying to frame the question in a way that wouldn't give anyone reason to claim that the RfC wording prejudged the issue, thus giving them an excuse to renew attacks. My wording was meant to enable the community to decide, calmly and without pressure, if it wanted to preserve all aspects of the leadership status quo, or some aspects, or whether it wanted more fundamental changes. I don't see a shadow hanging over FAC if, over a period of time, there is calm discussion about the way the system is run and possible means of improving it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
PS: Nor is there anything final intended by my suggested wording. Anyone can tweak it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, I believe I will allow someone else to add it. I'm not very good with templates.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
@Brian, I understood that (didn't intend to say otherwise), but the problem is that the proposed wording leaves out the most expressed option so far, which is to determine if Raul is endorsed then get back to the business of FAC, where tweaks to criteria or archiving processes can be accomplished as they were last time (via RFC, sans the claims about leadership). We can't leave out the option on the RFC that respects what has been said so far-- the proposed wording leaves no place for those who endorse leadership, and say let's get on with the business of FAC, any other tweaks necessary can be accomplished without being under a "leadership" cloud that has been pressed forward by a handful of vocal editors. It continues to strike me that the longer this goes on, the less FAC benefits, and I wonder who is benefiting by this constant moving of the goalposts-- when some of the same folks wanted an immediate RFC more than a week ago. The longer these stalls are allowed to occur (by the same editors who were in quite a rush ten days ago), the more we'll get folks in here asking questions that have already been answered, goal posts moved, revisiting the RFC of the RFC of the RFC, etc. -- and in the meantime, as predicted, I read through 2/3 of the 55 FACs today and found ... reviews lacking, few that can be closed. (Thank you for continuing to review, Brian!!!) Mike, what is the hold up on lost links? They are all easily found in the Dispatches-- tell me what you're missing and I'll find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sandy that there needs to be that option.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
My intention was that those who wished to support the status quo would support 1 and 1a. Sandy's right that the proposed change means that someone who wished the status quo to continue would not have that option (Wehwalt, thanks for indicating your agreement). The problem is that someone might wish to support or oppose a discussion of the role, but in some cases their support might be contingent on the outcome -- e.g. someone might wish to oppose a discussion if Raul is reconfirmed, but support one if it becomes an elected role. I think the best approach might be to make the "General discussion of the role" section into an RfC question: "3 There should be a discussion of the role of the featured director in some forum such as an RfC on conclusion of this RfC", with support/oppose/discussion sections, and a note explaining that the supports and opposes could be conditional -- one could say "Support only if the FA director becomes an elected role", for example. Any objections to that approach? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Mike-- but you lost me there. And it seems to me that most readers have already lost interest, as most of them have already said what they have to say. Folks want to be able to endorse the FA process and get back to work, before any more damage is done. I can't really tell what you're proposing above, but we need that option. Tweaks in archiving, things to affect timing, how the page is run, timing on archivals-- the day to day management of the page-- can be handled in separate RFCs as they were in 2010 (I suspect--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC) many newcomers to the discussion never even read that, but I digress), but folks have clearly said they want to be able to endorse Raul's leadership and get back to work-- whatever you change, we need to have that option, and no more derailing, sidetracking, moving the goalposts, etc. People need to be able to clearly say what they've already said: Do not pollute the FA process with politics and elections, day-to-day management of other issues can be handled via RFC as in 2010. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Easiest way to explain is to do it. I'll put it up and we can revert if there's no support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, done; let me know what y'all think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, from this, I see (but it was Greek to Me above)! Hmmmm ... don't see the need for it, seems understood as SOP, Instruction Creep, don't see what it adds other than keeping FAC under a cloud of perpetual RFC and unable to rebuild and recover from October - December, concerned that the community is already RFC weary and few will stick around to help rebuild, so not sure what that accomplishes, but Brian seems to think it's needed ... Bah ... I dunno. I do know we can't keep moving the goalposts and stalling an RFC that was originally discussed for last Monday. In the meantime, reviewers are gone, FAs can't be promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Having slept on the matter, and this morning read Colin's post below, I find myself drawn to accepting Sandy's reasoning. In the event of Raul's reconfirmation there will be no incentive to prolong the discussion about leadership roles, and the question should therefore be deferred to the second tier, should this be needed. (Of course, anyone can discuss the leadership roles informally to their hearts' content, any time). I am sorry if my intervention has caused confusion/delay; it was a good faith attempt to try and ensure that that the question was put as fairly as possible. I was not in any way "derailing, sidetracking, moving the goalposts, etc"; comments on the RFC draft were requested, and I responded. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Since it was Brian's post that led to this, I've reversed the changes to the RfC wording and also removed the note about the role definition remaining unchanged if he is reconfirmed -- I think that was the error in the wording that caused this discussion, so no need to apologize, Brian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I know you weren't doing any of that, Brian-- that would NOT be part of your nature, the essence of your character, which we all know well !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

History

Mike, history can be found in these:

Back with more if I can find them ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't locate (don't know what keyword searches to use) the other times that Raul was endorsed as director-- to find those, I guess I'd have to go archive by archive through the FAC talk archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks -- one of the links I was looking for was the 2004 ratification, which was in the first dispatch above. I've added it to the RfC draft. The other link I was hoping to add was to the "informal discussions" that the RfC draft mentions; I have a pretty clear memory of people coming to WT:FAC at least a couple of times and saying "how come Raul is not elected?"; as I recall there was general support, but only in an informal way -- half a dozen people would post to say they didn't want to change things, and that was that. It would be nice to find links to those, but I haven't been able to locate them. (Post ec), yes, that's what I was looking for. I don't think it's controversial that it happened, so I plan to leave it in, but links would be good if someone comes across them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Same memory, happened more than once, but short of going through the archives step-by-step, don't know how to find them, and they could have occurred elsewhere (mainpage, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There are various comments I want to make but don't have a great deal of time tonight (was away this weekend, so only gradually catching up). I'll be making this comment and one other one. On this subject (the history of the FA process) I think it would be a good idea to have a central subpage of the WP:FA structure where this history is documented. I asked questions about this history before (including the timing of the changes for the delegates), and was pointed to those Signpost dispatches, but really it should be all together on one page. And even though the Signpost dispatches came to an end (no need to go into the reasons for that) there is no reason why that series couldn't have continued as an internal bulletin for those following the featured article processes. Something produced 3-4 times a year to keep people informed of general trends and changes which would help people catch up if they were away for a few months. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't disagree, but it seems we're all quite tied up just getting the basics done, considering declining editorship and lack of reviews. I read through more than 55 FACs today, and found one promotable; having the time to write this stuff up would be just delightful-- or certainly more delightful than watching FAC lose reviewers over squabbles over non-issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I read the QEII article, and it was very nice. Just haven't found time yet to go and say that... Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Scope

Does the RfC have to be solely about the leadership? I was under the impression that it could also be about the FA process in general. --Elonka 00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The conclusion I drew from the closure was that that the leadership was the primary interest for most commenters. There's no reason we can't go ahead and cover other issues in a subsequent discussion, but this is already a draining process and I felt it was necessary to limit the scope of the RfC in order to make it productive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's get the leadership stuff squared away, and then we can discuss other matters. --Elonka 01:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggest simplification and two phases

I think this RfC is rather complicated, and I say this as someone used to reading and writing complex requirements specifications. There is a risk people will be confused, and !vote in the wrong place or open up opposes where you didn't want them, or make contradictory !votes.

  • Can we just remove the role definition/change aspect from question 1. That makes it much clearer that it is just discussing the re-confirmation of Raul and whether we want to set a timescale for another reconfirmation, or whether we are happy to let things go till someone gets fed up. It makes 1 and 2 much more exclusive and dealing solely with appointment issues.
  • It is too early to ask Q3. For example, if the majority are happy with the status quo then Raul is reappointed with his current role and many will see no need to urgently review the role. But should the majority reject Raul's reconfirmation (unlikely but hey) then I would think many people would want a discussion on the role prior to elections. Indeed, one's election pitch might include what one plans to do in the role. The game changes.

So the two changes I propose are removing the role aspect from Q1 and postponing Q3 until after the first round (when it could have multiple options such as a) now b) in a few months or c) ad hoc). Colin°Talk 09:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Both done, per Brian's agreement above. I think we're now getting close to being able to launch the RfC, but I'm going to wait at least a day or two longer to see if anyone disagrees with the changes, and also to see if anyone wishes to try to flesh out Noleander's version into a usable form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There needs to be a simple " do not confirm" to match the clarity of the confirmation option.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I see why you changed the heading as you did, but I think we need to tweak it some more. Questions 1 and 2 are more or less mutually exclusive; anyone voting support on one is likely to oppose the other. Hence it's accurate to title it "If Raul is not confirmed as director", since if 1 fails, Raul has not been reconfirmed. (I would prefer to change this to "reconfirmed", since that's the form we've used throughout, and since he was confirmed once before, in 2004.) To avoid ambiguity, I think the subsidiary questions ought also to change, since 2a currently says "is reconfirmed". How about "The FA director role becomes an elected position. Raul remains as FA director until the elections are completed. The timing and structure of the elections are to be defined by further discussion." for 2a, and "The FA director role becomes an elected position. Raul loses the role of FA director with immediate effect. The timing and structure of the elections are to be defined by further discussion." for 2b? If there are no objections I'll make those changes this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Mike, I agree generally, but I think not confirming Raul should be a separate "support" question. Let me work on it a bit and I'll edit tonight. If it isn't liked, it can always be changed. I trust you'll agree that people are engaging now?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I've thought more about your change of the wording to "If Raul is not confirmed as director" and it made me think we might be able to simplify this a bit more. I'm going to post a new section at the bottom (for visibility) to suggest a simplification of the questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike, a lot of changes (that seemed to be "leading the reader"), as well as some errors (there have been four FAC delegates, not three, and most turnover at FAR, not FAC) had crept in since your original version. I replaced that with Signpost publications and correct names and numbers with these edits-- giving the full history is more accurate then some random quotes from Raul and let's the reader decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Then, in this series of edits, I juggled the flow to give the history and define the issue of "delegates" before talking about those issues. The flow and history and numbers were just off; hope it's now fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I tweaked one word; I think your changes are fine, and I like the idea of using the Signpost links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, having addressed the flow, I'm unclear on the chronology of how Noleander's version came to be added after the pre-RFC on the RFC closed-- I don't know of a basis for questioning whether the FA process needs leadership. That second (alternate) section will confuse the reader, as raised by Colin above. I know you're trying to be just and neutral and impartial, Mike, but the community spoke once already and is already weary-- could we get back to what was decided in the RFC on the RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be removing that section tonight unless I see some support for it -- it's not intended to be part of the RfC; it was a sandbox for others who supported that approach to work on it. It hasn't received enough support for me to think it's a viable option. Once that's gone, and the 2a/2b changes are made as suggested above (assuming no objections), then I think we are close to a final version. I had thought Wehwalt's suggestion of Tuesday was too fast, but if there are no further issues raised tonight or tomorrow I could see this launching tomorrow night or the next day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA

Should the SOPA initiative go through and the site get locked from editing, you may want to hold off on launching the RFC until afterwards. --Rschen7754 20:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Is that thing still going forward in the face of Obama saying he doesn't support the controversial provisions?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo's been tweeting about it, so it's still highly likely. --Rschen7754 21:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Is there a date set for the SOPA strike? I've completely lost the thread, Mike, but I've added the "don't confirm Raul" option as a separate question. I would not remove the oppose sections, though I guess you could, because I suspect some people may have views that don't completely fit any of the proposed alternatives. I've also omitted the whole thing about whether Raul remains in office. I don't think it's worth discussing, he will unless he resigns until there's someone else or we dispense with the position.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Wednesday sometime; the results are set to be announced within two hours. --Rschen7754 22:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wanted a wikibreak.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems we will be dark Wednesday (Eastern Standard Time). The only people who will be annoyed is us.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's democracy in action for 'ya! Politicization of processes comes to mind ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Well, I did schedule a farrier visit for that day... sucks that it's going to be cold as heck here. Maybe I'll cancel the farrier and go to the library instead... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
To quote Dick Tuck—"The people have spoken—the bastards."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll wager $10 Dick Tuck never said that. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Tuck's pranks greatly gained in the telling. He's still alive, apparently, at least we don't record his death.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Further simplification

Wehwalt's comment that if Raul is not reconfirmed he would remain in office until a replacement was selected seems like an opportunity to simplify this further. In the straw poll there were two strong themes: whether Raul should retain the post and whether the post should be elected. I spent some time trying to make the two questions independent of each other, in order to avoid a process where one question has to be decided before the community can vote on the next question. If the two questions are really independent, then there are four independent outcomes. I don't think they really are independent, though.

Raul is reconfirmed Raul is not reconfirmed
The FA director should be appointed Status quo Appointment process
The FA director should be elected ? Election process

The option at the bottom left doesn't really mean anything -- if we're going to have elections, then Raul may stand for them but, as Wehwalt says, he would remain director by default until the elections are held. So maybe we can reduce the number of questions from seven to four, like so:

1. The post of FA director remains an appointed role, and:

(a) Raul is reconfirmed in that role.
(b) Raul is not reconfirmed in that role.
(c) If the post remains an appointed role, it should be subject to periodic reconfirmation.

2. The post of FA director becomes an elected role. The timing and structure of the elections are to be defined by further discussion.

All but 1(c) would be followed only by a support section, not an oppose section, as they are all mutually exclusive. 1(c) would be followed by support and oppose sections. I think this is a big improvement.

Option 1(b) is one that Brian said should be included in an earlier post on this page. In response to his post I said I felt it could be eliminated because if Raul is not reconfirmed there will be something very like an election, so it's really not different from 2, if one allows that those discussions may result in a process which does not lead to periodic elections. However, there were strong opinions expressed on WT:FAC about the question of whether the role should be subject to elections, and this approach makes it possible to express that opinion without being required to support Raul in the process.

Are there any possible opinions that this could exclude? If we're agreed that role definition is to be deferred, and that Raul remains in office till any subsequent process is completed, then I think this covers everything. If you believe that "Raul should stay, but it should be an elected post", you support 2 and subsequently vote for Raul, if he runs. If you like the status quo, you support 1(a). If you want Raul to stay but to be reconfirmed periodically, you support 1(a) and 1(c). I think this covers most or all of the positions I've seen expressed so far. The RfC closer will decide which of 1(a), 1(b) and 2 have the most claim to consensus, and will determine the outcome of 1(c) only if 2 is not carried.

Sorry to restructure at this late date, but I think the comments from everyone here have really simplified things, and I agree with Colin that it was complex as it stood. I will go ahead and draft these on the RfC page now, replacing the Noleander section, so that people can see the results more definitely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks good on first glance, but I want to think about it and work a few things on paper. But I think that is a very promising approach.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) OK, done. I ran into more trouble but I think I worked around it to an even better solution. If you're curious, the problem with what I posted above is that if 1(a) and 1(b) each received equal support, 2 might receive more votes than either, but it might be the case that the supporters of 1(a) and (b) would agree on the preference for appointed vs. elected, so 2 would have the majority but not be a consensus. So I had to make it three cascading questions. I think the result is actually a further simplification, but please tell me what you think.
(post ec) Glad you like that approach. Any other opinions? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've now replaced the earlier versions with this new one. I'll wait and see if anyone comments, but I feel this is much better than what we had; it's much easier to read and I think it allows the same range of opinions to be expressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion or polling?

When this request for comments (RfC) goes live, I hope there will be room for discussion and not just polling of opinions. There are several issues that have been raised over the past weeks that seem to have got lost in the general angst over how to structure this RfC. Even if the actual polling of opinion is kept simple, I do hope there will be room for people to express their views and opinions and ask questions, with at least some aspects addressed by future discussion. Could I suggest that there is at least a section asking whether more discussions are needed (probably, but not right away) and when to have those discussions (whether in a few weeks or months)? Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if we can ask you to restrict your feedback to less than a million words, and stay on topic :) :) :) Said with all kindness and respect, Carcharoth, but you do tend to go off-topic and create diversions occasionally :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to add a discussion about whether we need to have discussions. I've added discussion sections to the alt version of the RfC just proposed, and that, plus the section at the end for discussion of the role, seems to me to be plenty for now. The last part of my job as RfC coordinator will be to go back to WT:FAC after this is closed and ask if there are further issues from the original straw poll that need to be discussed, and, if more discussion is needed, whether I should be involved. The community never said that the discussion on leadership would be enough; they said it should be first. I think we can ask what's next when we're done here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. And I hope the section I just posted below isn't too off-topic. It does touch on leadership issues, I think. But might stray too much into performance issues. Anyway, I've got my thoughts down now, and in less than a million words as well. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There’s something happening here.
What it is ain’t exactly clear.

I think that any outcome other than change will lack legitimacy because this Request for Comment is being "framed" and structured to oppose/support insider preferences rather than "requesting outside input". This needs to be open to outside views, not just those vetted by a local consensus of incumbents. Alarbus (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A RfC has to ask specific questions. You want change; if the consensus in Q1 is for an elected director, you have your victory: Raul is not reconfirmed, an election will be held. If the consensus is for an appointed role, you can still support change by voting against Raul's appointment. There is a General Discussion section which is entirely open to outside views. I think Mike has striven to present the questions fairly; I was critical of some of the earlier wordings, but I don't think we can get much fairer than the latest draft, without getting hopelessly entangled in subclauses. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It not about “victory”. There’s battle lines being drawn. Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong. It's about seeking openness to much greater participation, seeking much higher output of higher quality articles, and about abandoning an arbitrary leadership model that has long served the project poorly. Alarbus (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
That isn't an answer. Just empty "big speech" words. Colin°Talk 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I seem to have missed Brian asking me a question. Alarbus (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that if the poll doesn't go your way then it must be flawed? Specfically which flaws do you see in the wording of the RfC? Colin°Talk 10:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Alarbus, if you're willing to provide specific suggestions, I can consider changing the RfC, but there's not much I can do with what you've posted. Please provide some idea of how you think the RfC should be structured. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that if the poll doesn't go your way then it must be flawed? - It sounds like he's already trying to discredit this RFC process so he can lay the groundwork for a fourth bite at the apple. Raul654 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
"requesting outside input" is right out of WP:RFC. Is that what's happening here? I don't think so. I see Sandy having picked a "framer" to structure/manage/whatever this into a set of pre-vetted up/down questions.
Mike, please stub-out a section for "outside views". I'll be offering one, For What It's Worth. Alarbus (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There's absolutely no reasons for an "outside views" section. How can you comment on "is that what's happening here" when the RFC hasn't even started? Those coming to the RFC, when it starts, from outside of the general FAC regulars can !vote or comment in the same places as anyone else. Please remember the RFC has specific limited scope, which is addressing what the community has decided is the most pressing question. The RFC will, I'm sure, we widely advertised for all to comment. Colin°Talk 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
See WP:RFC: "requesting outside input". That this "RFC has specific limited scope" is exactly why it lacks legitimacy. Alarbus (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This RfC will request outside input; any editor is free to comment and support whatever options they think are best. The topic chosen is also subject to outside input; in fact I believe most FAC regulars who expressed an opinion were either against an RfC, or against this topic, so it is hard for me to see why you think the topic is inherently framed towards insider preferences. If you think the wording itself is biased, I'm open to input on that. Finally, if you think the wrong topic was chosen, despite the opinions expressed in the straw poll, there's nothing to prevent follow up discussions. I would have gladly run an RfC on any topic the community came to consensus on; and I was under the impression, given your support for this topic, that you felt this was the right topic for an RfC too.
To respond specifically to your suggestion of an "outside views" section: I don't understand what you're looking for. Are you saying that only those who are not FAC regulars, or who perhaps have never submitted a FAC, should post in a section like that? Or that it is for topics that are outside the scope of the RfC? Or something else? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
See Carcharoth's initial post that I replied to. I don't think highly simplified support/oppose framing is appropriate. I obviously support change. What I've been after is a neutral statement of the history of the FA, a summary of the concerns expressed, and open the floor to “comment” from the whole community. I would expect a lively discussion and an uninvolved close (maybe by a group of 3, such as with the SOPA issue). What I'm seeing, though, is huge resistance to open discussion by outsiders. I'd like to see lots of IP participation; our readers. How about we have an every-page-banner such as the SOPA issue used to gauge opinion? Alarbus (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
If there's something non-neutral about the history of the FA process as given in the RfC, please say what you think the problem is -- that wording has already been tweaked a couple of times and I'm open to revising it again if there are real concerns. I decided against a summary of the concerns expressed, since I didn't feel any paraphrase I might make would be likely to be acceptable to both sides, unless it was pointlessly bland. In any case, there is an open discussion section available under each of the three questions -- I am sure that there will be posts there giving summaries of the concerns expressed. There's also a general discussion section, in which I've no doubt the topic restriction to "FA director role" will be frequently disregarded. You ask for comments from the whole community; well, I'm not sure what the problem is -- as it stands, everyone can comment, and yes, it should be widely advertised. I plan to post to a few obvious pages -- FA/FAC/FAR, the village pump, the central noticeboard, maybe one or two others I'm forgetting now -- but you're free to advertise it as widely as you like. If you can get consensus for a site notice, then go ahead. Finally, to address your first point: the framing of this RfC is open to comment from everyone, and if there is consensus here that support/oppose framing is inappropriate, I will change it. I would need to see some definite support for that position from others, though, since so far nobody else has made the case, and also since among the comments in support of this RfC at the straw poll I saw phrases like "an RfC ... to settle the matter", or "an Rfc so the issue can be settled". I take these comments to mean there is a desire for a definite outcome, not just a set of discussion points. If others agree with you on that point, then they should comment here soon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Mike, although I've said I believe you're not the right person to be doing this, I'm not saying you're not trying, and succeed at, being neutral. But I think the structuring of this as a poll is too limiting; WP:Polls are evil. Colin, above, has come out strongly against allowing outside views, and Modernist and Moni have a history of summarily cutting my posts. Think they'll cut an outside view? (especially mine;-) And there's Sandy walking the wiki with her lit flamethrower... I see no reason at all for a "topic restriction" in a request for comment. The effect of this structure is to encourage people to drop in a few #Support/Oppose lines with brief comments, when the project would be better served by more thoughtful comments than 👍 Raul. I am after a definite outcome here; change, higher standards, more openness, greater participation. But first we've a blackout to run... Alarbus (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Alarbus, your statement about me is quite false and I ask you to strike it. Please re-read my comment above. Outside views are welcome but we don't need to pigeonhole them in the RFC. We could do without you throwing mud at about Modernist and Moni too. We had a long rambling discussion earlier and it just got impossible to follow. This RFC extracts what the community considers are the urgent questions. There's no reason other discussions on FAC issues can't follow, if the community has the appetite for them. Yes, we know you won't be satisfied with any outcome other than radical change. Prepare to be disappointed. There is no messiah. Colin°Talk 08:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  • There's absolutely no reasons for an "outside views" section
would seem to clearly support my saying:
  • Colin, above, has come out strongly against allowing outside views
I'm glad you now welcome outside views. Thanks.
The wider community (see comments below) is who this RfC sould be seeking input from. The local talk can not speak for them, only for the incumbents. Alarbus (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. This didn't say "There's absolutely no reason for outside views" did it? And was followed by "Those coming to the RFC, when it starts, from outside of the general FAC regulars can !vote or comment in the same places as anyone else". Again, could you strike your mischaracterisation of my postion (twice) and I would like an apology now, for wasting my time. Colin°Talk 12:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I've declined to participate in this discussion so far because it seems to be rolling along super without me. However, if Alarbus and others bring the same overblown, unsupportable hyperbole (Raul is a dictator, God, it's a one-party system), invective, and making the conversation about individual editors rather than issues, I will be all too miserable to participate again, probably by either asking an admin to remove such useless comments or removing them myself, using my dusty admin tools to do it.
I've seen Alarbus have rational discussions so I know he can. Not that I think anything I might say would motivate him, but I'm encouraging him to make rational, logical comments about issues at FAC, and how potential changes may improve the system. The more statements by Alarbus or anyone else that are irrational and hyperbolic, the more likely it is that they are simply unable to use real examples or experience to make a point and are instead relying on other tactics to sway opinions. Alarbus, if you have problems with me, use my talk page. The link to it is at the end of my signature. Do not make this RfC about me or anyone else, please. Focus on the issues at hand. --Moni3 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Track records and setting goals

For what it is worth, my views are that the featured article (FA) director and delegates should be editors with a track record immediately prior to their appointment that shows major contributions in the areas of writing and reviewing featured articles, and that everyone (director and delegates) should continue to maintain this track record to demonstrate that they are familiar with the current standards prevailing at featured article candidates. This maintaining of the track record would either take place at the same time as someone does the director/delegate work, or by taking a sabbatical to write and review again for a while. There would be no reconfirmations. The only obligation would be to keep a record in userspace of work done as an editor on featured articles and work done reviewing featured article candidates. It should then become obvious if anyone drifts away from writing and reviewing and needs to take time out to re-engage with that. What I think should be avoided is any tendency for the featured article director to remain in that role indefinitely and/or leaving future plans vague (which is the current situation). It would be better, in my opinion, for the featured article director to set goals to achieve within a set time period (even if the goal is only to keep things going the same way as before), and then take stock at that point (e.g. after a year or two) and either step down or set new goals.

Possibly the above is too 'performance related', but I don't think it is an excessive requirement to ask those responsible for overseeing the featured article process (delegates) to document their track record in that process, and for the director to set some goals and review those goals periodically. I realise this isn't relevant to the structuring of the RfC, but wanted to get these thoughts down on the page to see if this is the sort of thing that people think would be worth discussing. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Launch on Thursday evening

Barring further substantive input, I plan to start this RfC, with the current wording, on Thursday evening, US eastern time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the chaos which is likely to follow the enforced strike, I suggest that we plan on Friday morning, but touch base on Thursday evening.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

A few thoughts: I like the simplified structure of this RFC versus previous versions. However, this sentence: Should the post of FA director remain an appointed role... needs to be changed. It is not accurate to use the word "appointed" to describe how I got the directorship, and it feeds into misconceptions (already expressed on WT:FAC) that I was appointed by Jimbo. I got the job first by doing it, and then later by community approval/acclimation.

Also, I notice that this RFC doesn't specify when or how it gets closed. I'm starting to get a bit RFC-weary, and with discussion about to enter its fourth week, the last thing I want is another lengthy RFC with an open-ended timetable. Raul654 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On your first paragraph, to save Mike further headaches over wording I suggest:-
  • In Q.1, the replacement of the words "an appointed role" with "by community consensus" (followed by "Support consensus role")
  • The wording "If the role is determined to be appointed" then changes to "If the role is determined to be by consensus"
Would these changes meet your concern? Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made these changes and a couple of related ones; here is the diff. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
An emerging concern about this latest (SOPA) in a string of delays and the how and when the RFC will be closed is that I tendered my resignation what will now be more than 10 days before the RFC will finally start, offering to stay on for the 30 days it would take to wrap up an RFC, assuming the 30 days was more than enough time ... so, on something after 30 days from Jan 8, Ucucha's load is going to increase, and there is already a recent-record number of FACs on the page due to lack of reviews and an uptick in noms due to WikiCup. (In the event this is still dragging on then because of these delays, I'm reminded that Brian offered to step in temporarily). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:RFC, there is no minimum or maximum length for an RfC. When I start it I will ask here, and also on WT:FAC, for a closer to be identified. I think it should run for a minimum of ten days, and be closed at any point after that that the closer feels the results are unlikely to change, and it should run for a maximum of thirty days. Are there any preliminary thoughts on who would be a good person to close this? Dweller (talk · contribs) and Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) have both been suggested. Any others? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps someone from Arbcom could help close, such as User:Elen of the Roads. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise also springs to mind as a highly respected uninvolved admin. Or what about a non-admin closer, one of a team of three? -- Dianna (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
A couple more comments:
  • (1) I made this edit which fixed three links. Are people checking the links to see if they are all correct? I checked some, but not all. The link to the WT:FAC archive is useful, but the link to WT:FAC is only useful as long as it is clear what is being pointed at. If the threads there (the ones that started after the page protection and before discussion moved here) get archived, the link will be pointing to the wrong place. I would suggest another manual archive of WT:FAC and updating the link here to point to that archive (or sections of an archive).
  • (2) A question more for Raul, since he started this section. Sandy said above that "giving the full history is more accurate then some random quotes from Raul", but I note that a recent quote from Raul is still linked as a diff at the end of the sentence about 'new FAC delegates'. If that diff link is to be included, there should also be diffs to the posts Raul made where he is quoted saying what the role entails (and the follow-up note). The question I have for Raul is whether, given that those statements he made are being included, should the replies he made to questions I asked him be included? Specifically this and this. Regardless of what Raul and others may have said in previous years, those are Raul's most recent thoughts on the matter of how change should or should not occur and should, IMO, be part of this RfC. Raul, do you think they should be included, or should that be deferred?
  • (3) Could Mike please consider whether this talk page needs archiving to leave it free for discussion once the RfC starts, and could Mike please list here all the places he leaves notices telling people about this RfC? My view is that notifications should be widespread, but other may disagree. I think disagreements about that come down to whether the featured article director role is one that serves the entire Wikipedia community (since featured articles is a prominent process appearing on the main page that represents Wikipedia to the wider world, hence wide notification needed), or whether the role is more that of the co-ordinator of a WikiProject and the community of people who are regulars at the process (hence narrower notification).
All the above points are relevant to this RfC as far as I can tell. I hope there is time to consider them. Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding notifications, I favour site-wide; I've said so several times. Anyone know how to request a SOPA-style banner at the top of every page? The rationale for site-wide notification is given right on WP:FA: as determined by Wikipedia's editors (Wikipedia:Wikipedians) — this is everyone's business; it is in no way an issue local to any local consensus of wp:FA-whatever page regulars. Alarbus (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Alarbus (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Taking the above in order: Carcharoth, I haven't audited the links since I created the page; thanks for doing that. I'll do another check before this goes live -- this morning if I have time. I agree on updating the FAC archive and will do something like that and make the links point to the right places. Re your question to Raul: yes, I think it would be OK to include those quotes, but I don't think it's required. They would perhaps be most relevant in the "General discussion of the FA director role" section, and you might consider posting them there once the RfC starts. Yes, I plan to archive this talk page -- I was undecided, since some of this discussion might be of interest to those commenting on the RfC, but I think it's long enough that it's worth archiving and starting with a blank page. I will update the RfC links to point to the archive as well. Yes, notifications should be widespread. I assume you're thinking of comparisons to something like the MilHist elected posts, which are clearly internal to that WikiProject? I think it's more difficult to argue that way for the FA process because of both its prestige and its wide visibility. If someone does want to argue that it's an internal issue, they can do that within the RfC, but I think at a minimum the Village Pump and the central noticeboard should get a post. I'm also planning to put a notice on WT:FAC, WT:FA, WT:FAR and WP:TFAR, since those are the affected pages. I see a proposed notification list here, for TCO's RfC, but I don't see the particular relevance of, say, GAN or LOCE; and though I think a lot of WBFAN members might like to hear about this RfC, that is an enormous number of talk page messages for an RfC. However, there's nothing to stop anyone from posting a notice anywhere they wish, so long as they abide by the rules on canvassing. Alarbus, I've never requested a site notice but I suspect the place to ask about the process is MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice; I don't know what the criteria are so I don't know if this RfC will qualify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Closer

Per this section at WT:FAC, I plan to ask Moonriddengirl if she'd be willing to close, as she was asked to look in at the start of this RfC. I would like to start the RfC tonight or tomorrow, so please comment soon if she would be unacceptable as a closer. I also think that my recommendation on duration should be limited to saying "at least ten days"; the guidance at WP:RFC should be enough for the closer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would give no recommendation at all; as you point out, WP:RFC is plenty.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me. She has indicated willingness to close, so I'll leave it at that unless someone comes up with an objection to her involvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"remain by consensus" a bit unclear

Sorry to come into this very late - not having read much of what came before.

My only concern on the wording is that "Should the post of FA director remain by consensus" is a bit unclear. I assume this means that the status quo will remain as it is, roughly "It ain't broke, so don't fix it." But what is the status quo as far as selecting and removing the FA director? "By consensus", I assume, means that an RfC could be called to remove the FA director, and then an RfC would be called to appoint a new one. Is that correct?

The election alternative seems pretty clear - some sort of straightforward "just count the votes" procedure would be set up in the near future, but the timing of the election is not an issue here.

FWIW, I'm in favor of both. Raul will leave at some point, but until then It ain't broke. Before he leaves an election procedure should be set up. Smallbones (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That section originally read Should the post of FA director remain an appointed one, or become an elected role?. I objected because I was not, in fact, appointed. I've changed the question to be more explicitly about keeping the status quo. Raul654 (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The new wording seems fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles/2012_RfC_on_FA_leadership/archive1&oldid=1078971653"