AVID:Requests for Comment/Define Policies for Admin Intervention in RfCs

Define Policies for Staff Intervention in RfCs
Recently, in the AVID Discord, the Wiki and Discord staff have been discussing the way RfCs are handled in certain outcomes where the Staff team may need to intervene. These scenarios could include things like silly RfCs being proposed or when RfCs come out as a tie. Since we currently have no procedures for this, we think it is time some guidelines are made for Staff to follow to keep things fair.

Currently, these policies has been proposed:
 * In the event of a tie, the Staff team will take a vote based on whether or not they think the RfC would be of benefit to the Wiki. It will then Pass or Fail based on the admin consensus. We can successfully implement this due to the current community-elected officials being a lot more impartial than past staff teams.
 * Push notifications on the Discord are implemented whenever a new RfC is proposed to encourage more users to vote which will minimise the amount of cases Staff will need to intervene on.

Having spoken with the Wiki staff, it was suggested that an RfC was made for the community to define these policies (and make comments on the two initially proposed) so that they can have their say on how staff handle these scenarios.

Initially, only Comments will be taken to allow the community to propose and expand upon any ideas they might have. Once this RfC has closed, a new RfC will be created to allow users vote for the policies they'd like to see implemented.

This was way to hard to understand (• USER TALK! •) 16:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments
Lets consider some ways to improve this, aside from reforming the sections and layout of this RFC which I leave to others. Some 2c on making this more refined, though I admit the suggestions add complexity which may not be appealing here. --Raidarr (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) What specifically constitutes a tie? I would say this is somewhat flexible: An RFC's outcome is unclear if the support ratio is between 50 and 65% or so. This ratio allows things that lack a majority to simply fail, including a straight 50% (which I argue means "there is no consensus to implement the changes proposed" based on how this is assessed globally). If there is more than 50 then there is a slim majority but not enough to consider the proposal clearly successful. I imagine you mean a tie is just 50%, win or fail if above or over. Which I argue is not necessarily best especially if something is hotly contested, but it is simpler.
 * 2) I don't believe it would be ideal to push a notification for every suggestion. However, perhaps pushing a notification if a substantial proposal hasn't reached say, 6 votes or is disputed would be sensible?


 * I'd say if it goes 50/50 the site staff take a vote, it just keeps it simple this way, however your point about there being slight leeway in either direction is fair. We could leave it up to the admin teams discretion.
 * I could see how this may get annoying for every RfC. As a Discord Admin, I could easily set up a Ping role, just like we've done with the announcement pings. That way, only people who want to get pinged about RfCs get pinged. I could see this working out as a more fair compromise?
 * Luke2505 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)