Audiovisual Identity Database:Requests for Comment/New guidelines regarding RFCs: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Archive top|Closing as {{approved|passed}}. [[User:Camenati|Camenati]] ([[User talk:Camenati|talk]]) 17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
==New guidelines regarding RFCs== |
==New guidelines regarding RFCs== |
||
Earlier this month in the Discord server, I brought up two things that several people and myself have issues with. I plan on implementing them as new rules regarding how users respond to RFCs, either currently being drafted or voted upon. These rules have received support from many, and I'd like to bring them forth to those on the wiki: |
Earlier this month in the Discord server, I brought up two things that several people and myself have issues with. I plan on implementing them as new rules regarding how users respond to RFCs, either currently being drafted or voted upon. These rules have received support from many, and I'd like to bring them forth to those on the wiki: |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
===Comments=== |
===Comments=== |
||
__NOTOC__ |
__NOTOC__ |
||
[[Category:RFCs closed in 2024]] |
|||
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
||
{{Archive bottom}} |
|||
Latest revision as of 17:19, 7 May 2024
The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
New guidelines regarding RFCs
Earlier this month in the Discord server, I brought up two things that several people and myself have issues with. I plan on implementing them as new rules regarding how users respond to RFCs, either currently being drafted or voted upon. These rules have received support from many, and I'd like to bring them forth to those on the wiki:
- No implementing changes prior to an RFC passing. Even if it looks like the RFC has a good chance of passing or failing, that doesn't mean it's always a guarantee success. If someone on the opposite side makes a very valid point, it can potentially, and greatly, affect the outcome of the proposal, resulting in it failing and making those premature edits go wasted. Believe me, I have seen plenty of proposals that had this unfortunate outcome.
- Comments should not be used to vote on drafted RFCs. They miss the point of what a comment is on proposals: comments ask questions, new ideas to add onto the proposal, etc. Ever since the new RFC draft system went into effect, the comments section has always been used as an alternative for voting when general users are not allowed to do so until it opens. It should be made clear on what the purpose of the section serves: as a form of feedback to improve the proposal instead of another voting option.
Support
Support Self explanatory. Tortuga Tonta Prods. (AKA Mr. Vadimon) (Formerly TPatKB) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)- Support yes.
(That guy who edits the Disney Home Video Bumpers pages) 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC) - Support Gilby1385 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Abstain
Oppose
Comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
