Wikipedia talk:RfC Committee

Good idea, but—

I'd recommend a different name. Since RfCs are not all content-related, the name "RFCCOM" does not make its mission clear. But since it will close RfCs that deal with content, I believe that calling it ConCom would be perfect. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that could be confusing. Perhaps a formal name of the 'Request for Comment on Content Committee' and with WP:RFCCOM and WP:CONCOM as redirects? PhilKnight (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I've restructured the essay to include content and policy RfCs. I guess that both WP:CONCOM and WP:POLCOM could be used as redirects. PhilKnight (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well--and this is just an initial response--are you sure you want to put both policy and content decisions in the same hands? Since the former can have a profound effect on the latter, might it not be better to keep them separate? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's a valid concern, and it's why the earlier draft was just focusing on content and not policy. I guess a way round this could be to create 2 subcommittees, so the same people weren't involved with content and policy. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was thinking _{(and the Wikibureaucracy keeps growing and growing . . . )} HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oooops! That comment above could be interpreted to mean that I don't support the two committees. I do; I just also recognize how it might look to someone who was here ten years ago at the start. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

ConCom and PolCom. It's a natural. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Another way to do this rather than commitees

Phil, my worry is that wikipedia's antithesis to exclusivity could kill this - one reason why ACPD failed it was another exclusive entity. Hence my concern that a predetermined circumscribed committee might be seen as a Really Bad Idea.

My alternative would be:

• Establish a new class of editor to convene and close content RfCs (let's call them "Writers" for ease of understanding)

• Upon closing of an RfC, a quorum of Writers convene to discuss and close a debate. Minimum to discuss and sign off is 5 (maybe maximum is ....?)

• To become one, the process is like becoming an admin - criteria community could judge is the candidate's content contribution and vetting (i.e. GA/FA/DYK/MOS/wikiproject/AfD participation) - the idea is that these candidates be people who can judge content, nothing to do with civility or admin tools etc.

• Extra abilities - delete and undelete and view deleted files, and ability to participate to close content RfC.

• Anyone can nominate to be a "Writer" - the idea there is a pool like admins or bureaucrats. I have no idea how big this pool should be but I can imagine 100 or so editors fitting the bill straight up.

The benefits of this approach is that it can be inclusive in a way - not a "committee" like Arbcom, and folks can work toward being on it. Although it still is in a way....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is excellent idea. Anything that helps with more qualified closing of content discussions (including CfDs) would be really important. However, I think there should be only one important criterion for selecting the candidates: he/she should know the subject of discussion/closing. Meaning that they studied this subject area in a University or at least read a few good books about this, rather than only listening to national political commentators. It also would not hurt to have two or three closers for important RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)