Requests for Comment/Community Directors

Following Incorporation, The community are able to conduct elections to nominate Community Appointed Directors. This RfC is to debate the proposed policy. You will be able to vote on each section and may if needed propose to amend various parts of the text. It is very important you express your opinion as the people appointed can have a massive impact.
 * RfC Opened: 19:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Opening

 * The first paragraph of Community_Directors is approved.

Support

 * 1) --EK ● contribs 19:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 00:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) for now. I appreciate the consideration that it is necessary to have a neutral and independent party managing community elections. Even better (and I hope to see this eventually) would be a committee setup instead of a team of commissioners. Additionally, I would like to see the Secretary involved with elections further than simply a recipient of information (i.e. a voting or advisory seat on such a commission/committee).  dross  (t • c • g) 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We can have up to 3 commissioners, due to the fact the Secretary is a board member they won't be able to vote but I would advise the commission to treat them as an advisor rather than a recipient. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand the desire to want to have a democratically-elected and responsive board, but there needs to be at least one anti-takeover measure. The Secretary should just be a regular commissioner if you ask me to help safeguard against hostile takeovers and such. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Stricken per comment from current secretary. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1a: Scope

 * Community_Directors is approved.

Support

 * 1) --EK ● contribs 19:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  dross  (t • c • g) 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) -  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 02:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1b: Appointment_of_a_commissioner

 * Community_Directors is approved.

Support

 * 1)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) in favor of higher limits. I simply don't believe 3 will always be enough.  dross  (t • c • g) 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The commission in future is welcome to adapt this via an RfC. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  I feel like the secretary of the board should be an ex-officio member of the commission just to ensure that there is always at least one person on it (rather than just arbitrarily mandating it). &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving to neutral. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving to support actually per comment from current secretary below. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1c: Revocation

 * Community_Directors is approved.

Support

 * 1) However I think that the voting must stay open for at least one week (7 days) --EK ● contribs 19:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  dross  (t • c • g) 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Nomination of Directors

 * Community_Directors is approved.

Support

 * 1)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Revocation (Directors)

 * Community_Directors is approved.

Support

 * 1)  upon a precise and enforceable definition of "...clear, justifiable reason".  dross  (t • c • g) 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A reason that is explained properly and backed up by facts. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Far too much ambiguity. Leaves the revocation process wide open for witchhunts so long as the rationale appeals to whoever is administering the revocation process. Very worrisome to me. dross  (t • c • g) 16:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Needs an overhaul to make the practice enforceable. Absolutely cannot support in its current state.  dross  (t • c • g) 16:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Eligibility to vote

 * Community_Directors is approved.

Support

 * 1) I would like to see some protections against witchhunts, meatpuppets, and sockpuppets specifically for the election process, though.  dross  (t • c • g) 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Length of director related votes & elections

 * Community_Directors is approved.

Support

 * 1) Clean, clear, and neutral.  dross  (t • c • g) 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6: Length of voting

 * All voting for Community Directors should remain open for a minimum of one week (7 days)

Support

 * 1) as proposer --EK ● contribs 20:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) though I would not like to see this become practice. Preferential toward a 14 or 21 day period.  dross  (t • c • g) 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is in addition to a minimum voters requirement. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Seems fine. User:Wolf (talk) CentralAuth Contribs 02:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7: Director Eligibility

 * User:Examknow/Community_Directors is approved.

Support

 * 1)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * Section 6 and 7, Community_Directors and Community_Directors, do not need to be approved due to technical and/or legal reasons. If you wish to amend them, please discuss it below and I will attempt to clarify it for you and/or propose your changes. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Section 8, Community_Directors, is also required by law under CC-BY-SA-4.0 - I do not see any reason to remove this or adapt it but am open to suggestions that meet legal requirements. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I spoke to about The Secretary being a commissioner and got the following: 'The Board Secretary views it outside of his remit and thus declines to be a member of the Commission'  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts from Examknow
Hello everyone. While I think this process is a great idea, I do have some ways to improve it. For starters there must be a section for Eligibility to nominate. There are good rules in place for who can vote mainly to prevent sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. However, in the means of preventing hat collecting or simply to prevent users from signing up for something they don't necessarily have a chance with, I propose setting the following requirements prior to nomination:
 * 1) The user must have at minimum 60 global edits or log actions (I am open to changing the numbers a bit)
 * 2) The user's global (SUL) account must be at least 6 months old (again open to higher/lower limits)
 * 3) The user must not have any outstanding CoCC violations
 * 4) The user must have demonstrated a reasonable amount of activity that is acceptable by the community

Also as for the appointment process, I propose that the voting must have been open for voting for at least one week's time and can be extended by a steward if needed. --EK ● contribs 19:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding, Eligibility to apply, you are welcome to draft a proposal for it.
 * Stewards based on the proposal, don't manage this election. The Commissioner will.
 * but I'm happy to add an amendment to allow a minimum vote length.
 * ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - 20:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

✅ I have placed an updated proposal page on User:Examknow/Community Directors and it should be merged with the main one ASAP --EK ● contribs 21:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ a linked proposal. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Can we get some clarification on the nomination rules? Do the support thresholds determine term length, or are the thresholds requirements based upon a candidates decision for term length? dross  (t • c • g) 01:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The rules on what percent and how many voters must vote set how long that term will last for you. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)