Current Proposals

You can also see a list of Past Proposals.

Freeing reservations of inactive indexers

proposed on 6. March 2010 reminder sent on 14. March 2010

First let me say what this proposal is *not* about. This is not about introducing time limits for the reservations (a reservation is any open change in the editing queue of an indexer) of indexers who actively work on the site.

This proposal concerns the freeing of reservations from inactive indexers. The goal of the proposal is to avoid having reservations in limbo for a long time due to inactive indexers. The proposal is to have an upper limit which we can work with until a general concept of expiration of reservations is agreed upon and is implemented.

As you might know we recently freed the reservations from indexers who haven't logged into the new site at all, after giving them another reminder email. I suggest to do this regularly for inactive indexers.

For the purpose of this proposal inactive equals not having logged in for three months. I use three months since this was the longest period which came up when we discussed the expiration dates for a reservation.

Shorter time frames should be discussed together with the general concept of expiration of reservation once we get around to that.

To give some data: Looking at indexers not having logged in since the first of January, this concerns about 30 indexers with about 250 reservations. Almost half of them by an active member who said he is quite busy currently. So not that much of a concern, but we shouldn't let these numbers grow.

--- start proposal ---

Indexers who haven't logged in for two months and have a reservation (which is any open change) will get a reminder email. The email says that if they don't work on their reservation within a month they will be discarded. Indexers who did get a reminder email and haven't logged in for three months will get their open changes discarded. This proposal is automatically invalid once a general concept of automatic expiration of changes is agreed upon and implemented.

--- end proposal ---

Passing unopposed proposals

proposed on 11. March 2010

--- start proposal ---

A proposal made in accordance with the then-current rules governing proposal structure shall automatically take effect if and only if:

• No list member continues to object to the proposal after two weeks time.
• The proposal was sent prefixed with REMINDER: after the 8th day, specifying the final day for objections.
• At least two weeks have passed (15 days if the day on which the proposal was introduced is counted as the 1st)
• At least 72 hours have passed after the REMINDER.

For the purposes of this proposal someone is considered to be continuing to object simply by saying so. Absence from the lists during the consideration period does not confer any special privileges with regards to objections made after the proposal takes effect. Amended proposals (as explained in the proposal on the basic structure of proposals) work the same way as original proposals- the clock restarts from the day of the amendment is made.

A proposal with no objections, but no reminder email is closed four weeks after the start of the proposal. It can be restarted with a clean state (it did not fail, there were no objections).

--- end proposal ---

I reworded Henry's original proposal (which I think did pass, at least in spirit  :-) to make the reminder email part more workable. I didn't see anyone needing two reminders, one reminder in the second week with some time afterwards should be fine.

The purpose of the last paragraph is to take care of a proposal where everyone including the person starting it forgets about it, otherwise proposals would be in some kind of limbo state.

I would suggest as a good practise that the reminder email also includes a reminder that the replies to the reminder email should remove the word reminder from the subject line to keep reminder emails sticking out. (Yeah, 5 times  :-)

Henry's original comment: This proposal does not address what happens if objections remain after two days. It does not address how a proposal that has taken affect is recorded or how, when and under what circumstances a proposal may be reversed or revisited. Specifically, while the proposal does not grant special objection privileges to absent list members, it does not prevent the absent member from using some other normal method to revisit or reverse the proposal.