Forum:Can we stop using "Notices Of Intent"?
I was pretty annoyed when I saw a few of these a while back and assumed they were only used in rare situations, but now they are becoming more and more common. In case you were not aware, notices of intent usually sit at the top of YG discussions and say "consensus will be made on xx/xx/xx".
The problem with these notices is that they don't account for changes in opinions, and changes to the proposal in question essentially putting a deadline on when changes can be made. Not only does this not give the minority in a discussion a fighting chance, but it tries to force action on a discussion that may have died down when consensus was not truly reached.
Now I understand when there is complete agreement and people just want a guarantee to make them feel secure in changing something, but when there is any hint of opposition in a discussion to attach these to the top at any point is unnecessary and should be avoided. TEbuddy 09:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If you're hinting to the discussion about mainpage change then you need to know that no1 has commented on it for 10 days, and no1 probably even bothered to have a look at it anymore.14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I see these as letting people know when that person intends to close it, that way anyone who hasn't given their opinions can do so and anyone who objects to the notice and feels that the discussion should continue can call for keeping it open.15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutral leaning towards Support - I'm going to wait to hear other people's opinions before Supporting or Opposing. I think they should not be used unless every single vote is Support or Oppose. See my comment below --— Enigma 15:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Until we come to a consensus on how to determine a consensus, than these provide the community with the knowing that a discussion has taken place for some time now and a consensus can be reached. This also allows persons who have not yet read the discussion the opportunity to do so and to know when to sumbit their response. Many users wait for others to post before posting, and this will allow them to know when they should post if they are wishing to but have yet to. On something as serious as changing the main page as drastic as proposed, I think the community should know when they can expect to see a result. This is to move the discussion again and to bring it back into peoples mind. Leaving a discussion to hang dry in the rain make's no sense. This is putting some kind of attention to a dieing discussion.
17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just notice a majority of my sentences above are fragments... 0.0
Comment - Regardless of what you think bonzii, under a consensus based system there is no time limit or deadline. The other users cant know when the discussion will be over because you don't know because thats now how our consensus system works. The entire ordeal is drawn out until everyone agrees to a proposal and as you have seen this can take many weeks, and sticking a "we are done by this date" notice on it does nothing but hurt it. TEbuddy 21:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Support, per Bonzii, I don't think you should be able to limit the amount of time a discussion can go on for if valid points are still being argued through --Serenity1137 13:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Request for closure, no consensus was made to change policy, so the status quo prevails, we continue using "notices of intent" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serenity1137 (talk) on 11:31, June 27, 2009.
- Per RS:CONSENSUS, only the original author of the proposal may request for it to be closed. --— Enigma 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could you quote the sentance where it states that? Searching "author", "request", "close" and "closure" gives no results. This is the subject of a discussion of it's own here. 18:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - Notices of intent really don't need to be used anymore, what with the consensus policy in effect. 20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - As per bonziiznob's strong oppose above. Randox 20:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)