Proposal of CZ:Proposals

[Larry Sanger]

Read what I wrote after that, Steve.    (Sorry, I didn't actually mean to shout that!  )  My worry is not that the process is too complex but that the instructions cannot be stated simply enough for everyday use.  But I am very confident that they can, as I will soon be demonstrating.  One simply puts the most important and most-used rules in the instructions, and links to the rest on a separate page.

There is a difference between complexity of process, on the one hand, and complexity of rules (or completeness of exploration of policy implications), on the other hand.  You can have an extremely complex ruleset to govern an extremely simple process, which is more or less the case here.  The process envisioned here is pretty simple: to submit a proposal, fill out this template.  Then, if you're the driver, make sure the template contains information about the next step and the date when the next step will be done.  The Proposals Manager then takes care of reminders (with input, no doubt, from others).  That's pretty much it...

[Robert_W_King]

Should proposals in [[CZ:Proposals]] queues include discussion/evaluation, and/or links to separate discussion/evaluation pages?

No.  I simply don't see any reason for it.  The purpose of the proposals system is not to evaluate proposals at all, but just to see to it that the entire proposal adoption process moves forward.  Discussion of the proposal belongs elsewhere.

I must vehemently disagree with this answer.  Not only is it relevant to include discussion that is already active or previously active in order to avoid the restating of points already validated/invalidated, but also so that there is a history of why the proposal came about in order to make sure that history is not repeated (those who forget it are doomed to repeat.)  The history of the proposal can have a direct impact on what the proposal ends up actually being (rejected, accepted, or modified).

OK, finally: where do the more lengthy proposals + discussion of them live?

Note that the short, template versions of proposals, the boxed text that goes in the queues, must be linked to another page, which is where all the "action" goes.

I think that, for the sake of simplicity, they should all be subpages of [[CZ:Proposals]].  This even goes for Editorial Council resolutions; it's just that, when a resolution is formally made and numbered, we redirect the CZ:Proposals subpage to the Editorial Council resolution page.  So the first proposal should be [[CZ:Proposals/0001]].

You're contradicting yourself.  When I had suggested this you said that it wouldn't be a good idea.  What gives?

[Larry Sanger]

Robert, of course proposals need to be discussed.  They will be; they just won't be in the queue.

[Robert_W_King]

Also:

Are there any constraints at all on who may make what sort of proposal?

No.  Anyone may initially make a proposal.  However, not just anyone may take the lead on, or drive, a proposal.  For example, suppose a very enthusiastic 20-year-old student wants a complicated editorial policy adopted...

I can't help but feel this is a dig. 

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Well, I suppose this was Larry's lack of diplomacy. The point is that major structural changes cannot be promoted by absolutely anyone, otherwise the proposals system could go into overload. It is better to have filters, such that more experienced people can take up the really good ideas, and gently dissuade the less experienced from pursuing the weaker ideas. Of course, anyone is free to make proposals in the first instance.

There are imperfections in this approach -- namely, that conservativism within the more experienced personnel might impede taking up really good new ideas -- but we get around that by using intelligent and open-minded people in positions of decision-making. Thus far, I hope you would all agree we have succeeded in so doing.

[Larry Sanger]

Also:

Are there any constraints at all on who may make what sort of proposal?

No.  Anyone may initially make a proposal.  However, not just anyone may take the lead on, or drive, a proposal.  For example, suppose a very enthusiastic 20-year-old student wants a complicated editorial policy adopted...

I can't help but feel this is a dig. 

No, of course not.  It's a perfectly general point, and would have been applicable on many occasions, in my experience.  It wasn't directed at you, Robert.

[Larry Sanger]

Should proposals in [[CZ:Proposals]] queues include discussion/evaluation, and/or links to separate discussion/evaluation pages?

No.  I simply don't see any reason for it.  The purpose of the proposals system is not to evaluate proposals at all, but just to see to it that the entire proposal adoption process moves forward.  Discussion of the proposal belongs elsewhere.

I must vehemently disagree with this answer.  Not only is it relevant to include discussion that is already active or previously active in order to avoid the restating of points already validated/invalidated, but also so that there is a history of why the proposal came about in order to make sure that history is not repeated (those who forget it are doomed to repeat.)  The history of the proposal can have a direct impact on what the proposal ends up actually being (rejected, accepted, or modified).

OK, finally: where do the more lengthy proposals + discussion of them live?

Note that the short, template versions of proposals, the boxed text that goes in the queues, must be linked to another page, which is where all the "action" goes.

I think that, for the sake of simplicity, they should all be subpages of [[CZ:Proposals]].  This even goes for Editorial Council resolutions; it's just that, when a resolution is formally made and numbered, we redirect the CZ:Proposals subpage to the Editorial Council resolution page.  So the first proposal should be [[CZ:Proposals/0001]].

You're contradicting yourself.  When I had suggested this you said that it wouldn't be a good idea.  What gives?

Please don't be so defensive, Robert.  I'm not criticizing you, I'm engineering a system.  The idea was a good one; it just needed to be tweaked, as you'll see.  What I didn't like was the suggestion that the entire governance/decisionmaking process would take place within the pages of [[CZ:Proposals]].  I think we all now understand that and why that isn't the case.

[Jitse Niesen]

Well, here we go.  The main reason we're tracking status is that we want to know (1) what, generally, needs to be done next (we need to know what actions we need to nudge), (2) whether a nudge is necessary at this point, and (3) of course, whether the proposal is finished. 

The question that I would like to see answered is: What states does a proposal go through? At the moment, most proposals seem to peter out after community discussion. It's not clear what the next step is. I think that is the main problem. The issue of how to keep track of proposals seems of lesser importance.

[Larry Sanger]

Jitse, you're right.  That question needs to be answered.  I do think that keeping track of proposals is an important matter, too, but not as important as clarifying (and making easier) how a proposal gets to acceptance and action.

The basic method of getting a proposal accepted and acted on is: (1) make the proposal; (2) develop it as appropriate; (3) put it in the hands of the decisionmakers; (4) if accepted, implement it.

Step (1) is what we've been working hardest on lately.  As to step (2), the only de facto requirement that most proposals need to meet is: it is in good enough shape to gain a champion or sponsor, or (if you can represent the proposal yourself) approval?  As to step (3), what we need to do is finally (glory be) make a list of "persons to pester" for each different group.  As to step (4), that differs from proposal to proposal, and I'm not sure one can make any generalizations about it, except that one can't simply take this step for granted, and project policy pages might need to be rewritten.

Anyway, I'll be developing (2) and (3) on the wiki, probably tomorrow.

[Denis Cavanagh]

To be honest I was looking at it from a simple perspective: CZ:Proposals was just a place where someone could pose a question to the community and get a response from the community. I don't see the need for all the theorising when in reality what is simple is often what is best.

[Larry Sanger]

To be honest I was looking at it from a simple perspective: CZ:Proposals was just a place where someone could pose a question to the community and get a response from the community. I don't see the need for all the theorising when in reality what is simple is often what is best.

Well, there's a need for that too, but that isn't the problem I'm trying to solve.  The central problem the proposals system is aimed to solve is to give people a clear method allowing them to build new tools, policies, processes, etc., for CZ--not just talk, but take real meaningful action.

I should add, however, that sometimes getting a definitive answer to a policy question--exactly of the sort you asked--is what is needed for "real meaningful action."  That's why the system is set up to handle "issues" (which asks the community to make a decision among options) as well as proposals (this will soon be clarified).

[Robert_W_King]

To be honest I was looking at it from a simple perspective: CZ:Proposals was just a place where someone could pose a question to the community and get a response from the community. I don't see the need for all the theorising when in reality what is simple is often what is best.

That's what I had envisioned to a degree, but I guess it required more bureaucracy.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

It is a frequent problem in social science, that even hardened professionals view "the policy process" as being some sort of little black box, where you put problems in, and the chosen policies come out after a suitable delay. Even now, the conceptual grasp of how government policy is made is little-researched and poorly understood.

The same assumptions seem to be operating here, where people originally thought that depositing their ideas in the "black box" would somehow result in their being implemented, at least if they are any good. However, those who are actually responsible for making policy have to deal with complex realities: this, to my mind anyway, is why you are all accusing Larry of making things too complex. In fact, he is merely addressing the complex reality of decision-making processes.

I suppose that, ultimately, Larry et al will produce a virtual black box: you will put the proposals inside it, and some of them will be shifted into different sections of the box, mysteriously go off to be discussed, and finally a few will emerge as CZ policy.

[Larry Sanger]

It is a frequent problem in social science, that even hardened professionals view "the policy process" as being some sort of little black box, where you put problems in, and the chosen policies come out after a suitable delay. Even now, the conceptual grasp of how government policy is made is little-researched and poorly understood.

The same assumptions seem to be operating here, where people originally thought that depositing their ideas in the "black box" would somehow result in their being implemented, at least if they are any good. However, those who are actually responsible for making policy have to deal with complex realities: this, to my mind anyway, is why you are all accusing Larry of making things too complex. In fact, he is merely addressing the complex reality of decision-making processes.

I suppose that, ultimately, Larry et al will produce a virtual black box: you will put the proposals inside it, and some of them will be shifted into different sections of the box, mysteriously go off to be discussed, and finally a few will emerge as CZ policy.

I will endeavor to prove you wrong, Martin, though that may be hard.

I agree with your analysis of Robert and Denis' complaints.  I would put it this way.  You can't simply put up a page simply saying (essentially), "Stuff is decided here," and expect to solve any problems thereby.  The devil is in the details, i.e., how you get proposals clarified, how they get legitimized, and who keeps the whole process moving along.  When I said earlier that simplicity is key, what I meant is that I want to produce the simplest possible system that actually keeps proposals moving toward approval and implementation.  This problem has certain factual elements that simply cannot be eliminated.  I'm not claiming I have produced the only possible system, but I do think it is quite simple indeed as a solution to that complex problem.

[Robert_W_King]

I never stated that things should be "decided" there; I simply meant the page to be a community portal for requests.  However, I did initially provide a place for those requests to go if they were somehow actually approved.

Maybe I should have just called it CZ:RFC.