Talk:Requests for Comment/Requests for Comment

Community Discussions

I prefer calling it something like feedback request as every discussion is a community one. Should we also extend proposals 2,3,4,6,7 and 8 to both feedback requests and RfCs. Maybe both FRs and RfCs should be called community consultations as a whole. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 20:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest using a phrase that sounds more binding than "Feedback Request" for policy discussions on the Community noticeboard, since they seem to basically be WP:VPP discussions. — Arcversin (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I am open to better names. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there an issue that this is intended to resolve, or is this entire set of proposals simply bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy? --Robkelk (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Principally the proposals aim to 1. codify conventions so there's something to properly refer to on Miraheze, and 2. cut down on the recent trend of very ill prepared proposals. --Raidarr (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional Proposals

I don't want to renumber the whole thing yet so.

1. Any closure must only be done by someone who has the power to enact the decision given except where the decision would be a configuration change generally allowed by SRE in which case the closure may be done by someone who SRE would accept to request they make the change. The community are encouraged to seek approval for any configuration change before consulting with the community on it.
2. No closed RfC should be edited unless there is a technical reason to do so or where Oversight / Revdel is needed unless not doing so would pose a risk to the preservation of the state of the discussion. A change must not be made where a reasonable person could find it changed the meaning of the point.
3. No comment made by another user should be edited unless express authorisation is given by the user or where not doing so would risk further harm unless other policy suggests the content should or must be removed.
4. Any term defined in RfC 2119 must be interpreted as if defined as given in RfC 2119. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

   1. Since this RfC is primarily talking about RfCs and not RfFs (Requests for Feedback), perhaps it'd be a better idea to create another RfC to discuss just RfFs so as to not clutter up this current RfC with unrelated proposals.

   2/3. It's a de facto practice for administrators to revert any unauthorized edit to closed RfCs (and discussions as a whole) and for the sake of not cluttering this RfC, I think it's better to leave that practice uncodified.

   4. I would imagine the closing bureaucrat/Steward would interpret them in a manner consistent with RfC 2119 or something similar so is there really a need for that? Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 08:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

   I would agree with Agent and generally think that this RfC has unfortunately got way too large (19 proposals in total!). Regarding 1, we may want a separate RfC (and maybe even a separate process with it's own page, etc.) for RfFs. If there's a feeling that 2/3 need to be codified, I would rather have those discussed separately, perhaps in an RfC about Meta rules (since technically 2/3 fall under Meta's rules in my opinion). And for 4 indeed, I don't remember an instance where a Steward has interpreted a word inconsistently with RfC 2119. Reception123 (talk) (C) 08:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)