User:DeeM28/Meta extensions and settings policy

'''This is a drafted policy. Please do not vote and let me know if you have suggestions or feedback. You can also add any proposals that you think are relevant or necessary. Thanks! DeeM28 (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)'''

It has been made evident during the latest discussions held on Meta, the one regarding the Report extension and the latest regarding Labeled Section Transclusion that there are quite a few disagreements between users regarding whether bureaucrats (and Stewards?) are allowed to activate extensions or change settings on Meta without an explicit discussion or consent having been given by the community. Some are of the view that nothing should be possible without an explicit discussion, others of the view that a broad approach should be taken. What is quite clear to me personally is that because of these differences in opinion, the Meta community must decide via RfC what the approach should be moving forward, as the status quo which is unclear and disputed can not be preserved, and a clear approach must be adopted.

I will therefore, as is the RfC 'tradition' propose multiple options and variants. DeeM28 (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Management)

 * Since Meta is the central coordination wiki, Stewards are responsible for the management of Meta's ManageWiki extensions and settings, provided the extension or configuration change doesn't:
 * 1) propose to establish a new Meta local user group or change the permissions of an existing local Meta user group in which case bureaucrat determination of whether a Meta community discussion is required. This approval by a Meta bureaucrat should be given on-wiki, ideally at Administrators' noticeboard;
 * 2) propose to materially change the workflow of local Meta bureaucrats, administrators, or other local volunteer groups on Meta; or,
 * 3) propose a configuration change or extension change that has only Meta impacts

Meta bureaucrats are responsible for reviewing and providing assent, on-wiki, to any of the following exceptions listed above

Where a community discussion is determined by a Meta bureaucrat to be required, an ideally uninvolved Meta bureaucrat shall be responsible for closing the community discussion, then requesting a Steward effect the result of said discussion via a request on Stewards' noticeboard, subject to the Meta bureaucrat following the notification procedures of Proposal(s) 1.x (as applicable)

Likewise, where the extension or configuration change doesn't propose to alter one of the three exceptions stated above for which Meta bureaucrats are responsible for reviewing and assenting, on-wiki, to, Stewards should provide notification to the community at the venue determined by Proposal 1.2

It is clarified that, unless the bureaucrats are inactive, Stewards should not directly evaluate community consensus or enable extensions/settings without the assent of a bureaucrat.

Proposal 1.1

 * In additions to the conditions proposed in or specified by Proposal 1, Meta bureaucrats, if the configuration change or extension has only Meta impacts:
 * will ensure the proposed change is advertised on Administrators' noticeboard, if it is a local Meta only configuration change requiring Meta bureaucrat review and assent

Proposal 1.2

 * In additions to the conditions proposed in or specified by Proposal 1, Stewards, if the configuration change or extension has impacts affecting one or more wikis other than Meta (i.e., pan-Miraheze impacts):
 * will ensure the proposed change is advertised on either of options A (Stewards' noticeboard), B (Community noticeboard), or C (either of A or B), if the configuration change or extension has impacts affecting one or more wikis other than Meta

Proposal 2

 * Meta Bureaucrats (if the configuration change or extension has Meta only impacts) or Stewards (if the configuration change or extension has impacts on one or more wikis other than Meta) may choose to request to assent to having the change completed or enabled, as applicable, without having the full discussion specified by Proposal 3 when the following conditions are met:
 * the extension/setting does not change the current workflow of the wiki(s);
 * the extension/setting does not propose to either (a) make a significant change to an existing local Meta user group or to (b) add any local Meta user group (applicable to Meta bureaucrats only);
 * the extension/setting does not propose to create, delete, or make a major change an existing user group specified in Special:ManageWikiDefaultPermissions (applicable to Stewards only); or
 * the extension simply adds a trivial or minimal aspect to the wiki(s)


 * Where the above criteria are met, it is further clarified that the proposed change is still to remain open for a period of not less than that which is specified in Proposals 1.1 and 1.2 (applicable to Meta bureaucrats and Stewards respectively)


 * If in doubt about whether the conditions are met, the Meta Bureaucrats or Stewards, as applicable, should require the proposed change last the full five days

Proposal 3

 * If an extension does not meet the criteria specified in the Proposal 2, it will be discussed via the venue specified in Proposal 1.1 (if it affects Meta only) or Proposal 1.2 (if it has impacts affecting one or more other Miraheze wikis) before it is enabled/changed. The discussion should stay open for at least five days, and a bureaucrat (in the case of Proposal 1.1) or a steward (in the case of Proposal 1.2) will decide whether there is consensus for the extension to be enabled or the setting to be changed, subject unless the extension is determined by either to provide for a trivial or non-controversial change described in Proposal 2 above