AVID:Requests for Comment/Screen ALL future RfCs

Screen ALL future RfCs
Lately, I've noticed an influx of under-thought, half-baked Requests for Comment, to the point of the RfC landing page being clogged with heavily opposed RfCs. I'm proposing that a system to screen RfCs be implemented in order to keep proposals to a certain standard of quality. I have two possible options in mind, which will be outlined below. (Lets chat!) 04:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Send all RfCs to a staff screening queue
This proposal would be similar to the Moderator extension, where any RfCs are sent to a queue where AVID staff will discuss the pros and cons of such a proposal, and whether there has been enough thought put into it.

Oppose

 * 1) Absolutely not. There could be censorship behind this process, which given that there is no publicly available general criterion that users can reference if they believe that rejection has been made in bad-faith. -- Cheers, Bukkit (talk • contribs • global • rights) 04:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) As Bukkit pointed out, censorship could be behind this process. That's not good for me (or the site), so for that reason, I'm out. (I have no idea on the third proposal, and I think the second proposal is the best out of the three.) AUnnamedDragon 9:50 AM, May 21, 2023 (CET)


 * An understandable concern. I can assure you, having worked with AVID staff for a while, that we would not work to censor our users. Given your position on the matter, I encourage you to consider the second proposal provided here. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 07:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned with the current staff roster, I'm more concerned about the future generations. This just seems to be a hotfix that is gonna shoot everyone in the foot at some point. -- Cheers, Bukkit (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah fair enough. Again, I encourage you to consider the other proposals provided here. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 10:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Implement an RfC draft system
This would be similar to the RfC draft system at meta.miraheze.org.

Support

 * 1)  for either. Drafting would help people like me fix the RfCs we make. I might word something wrong, break grammar, or forget it is already implemented. JrStudios Logo .png(What you gonna do when clip-ons come for you!?) 11:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'm vouching for this one. I think this would ensure the right RFCs that will get approved   Logohub   (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  as proposer for this option. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 07:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , we seriously NEEDED this for a long time. It took several months from when this first got proposed on Discord to when it finally showed up on an RfC. I bet this feature is going to be a lifesaver for many people on the Staff to screen those half-baked RfCs some have been putting out ever since its introduction. Why haven't we got started on this sooner? Compooper (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per others. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 12:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Great for rush hour! Ashley Taylor ft. Cure Finale (soulbond) and Raboot (pet) (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  Definitely the best proposal of the three. This would help people fix the RfCs that are made and as such, I'll vouch for this one. AUnnamedDragon 11:32 AM, May 22, 2023 (CET)
 * 4) on this version. I personally feel the draft system would be the easiest to implement, and I still have concerns over conflicts of interest undermining valid proposals from the staff's side...and overall feel a bit more comfy with just the drafts. Solarstrike (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A Hybrid System
As proposed by Raidarr on the Discord server, this idea would see what is primarily a draft system, with a to be determined amount of time in draftspace, alongside the requirement of 2 members of site staff signing off on the proposal before it appears on the RfC landing page. (Lets chat!) 12:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: Since there have been concerns raised about censorship, I should clarify that staff under either system involving them would only be allowed to reject an RfC if it was blatant invalid or clearly had no merit, the latter most likely coming through community consensus.

Support

 * 1) for the best option. Anything to filter useless RFCs like "Ban [Important feature], or "Return scare factor!1!1" JrStudios Logo .png(What you gonna do when clip-ons come for you!?) 11:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) as proposer is going behind this proposal instead, as needing only two members of staff to approve in a public system would be far better than a closed system, while still allowing staff to make sure the RfC page remains at a certain level of quality. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 21:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) against the crowd for this venue because I think it would result in higher quality RfCs and I find the current drafting process as executed on Meta to be conceptually broken. Meta in some ways is broken and RfCs are a good part of that. --Raidarr (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Luke2505 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) for this proposal instead. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 17:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) I now support this proposal instead of the other two. By taking the best of both worlds in queue and drafting, we now have a system with multiple variables of screening, and is one we greatly need for this wiki given its current RfC activity. I apologize for not changing this sooner, I didn't feel like signing into Discord on my phone to retract my initial vote. But this has been my current opinion for about a few days now. Compooper (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) Per everyone. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) for this one instead.   Logohub   (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) Originally Abstain, now in response to everyone preferring this one over the second proposal. AUnnamedDragon 5:56 PM, May 31, 2023 (CET)

Abstain
I'm uncertain here. On one hand, it can filter RfCs that have no use. On the other hand, as with the first proposal, censorship could be behind this. AUnnamedDragon 11:28 AM, May 22, 2023 (CET)

Oppose

 * 1) Same reason for opposition as proposal 1. -- Cheers, Bukkit (talk • contribs • global • rights) 12:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Censorship tends to come in the form of an executive veto or lack of transparency. Neither apply in this case: all it does is require people submit a draft to think through the proposal, and the proposal to be coherent enough for any two staff members to say 'this seems coherent' out of a rather large staff team and *not* implementing a veto. Or at least, no more a veto than the unregulated nature of being able to close a proposal as invalid, which can happen any time now and regardless which proposal passes. In that case and in any case, a vote of no confidence may ensue if the closure is clearly in bad faith or it can be publicly challenged if simply incorrect. I find the opposition on basis of censorship is more reactionary than objective in nature. --Raidarr (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * precisely this. Simply saying "There could be censorship" without actually considering other factors isn't enough. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 05:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)