→Votes: support |
→Votes: it's just silly |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
; Oppose |
; Oppose |
||
:# Per not bureaucracy. We're getting in a tizzy because clarifications and amendments get merged? Whether a ''Hey ArbCom, you didn't quite get it right, please fix this'' process is called amendment / clarifications / have a [[Trout|Salmonidae]] is just so not important. <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|Nobody Ent]]</small> 00:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
; Abstain |
; Abstain |
Revision as of 00:13, 28 May 2012
Motions
Motion to consolidate evidence submission procedures
The Arbitration Committee's existing procedures governing the submission of evidence, as enacted on 17 April 2011 and 24 May 2012, are replaced with the following consolidated and restated procedure:
- Submission of evidence
Submissions of evidence are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 difference links for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 difference links for all other editors. Editors wishing to submit evidence longer than the default limits are expected to obtain the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) via a request on the /Evidence talk page prior to posting it.
Submissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Unapproved over-length submissions, and submissions of inappropriate material and/or links, may be removed, refactored, or redacted at the discretion of the clerks and/or the Committee.
Votes
- Support
-
- Proposed. Our recent change has introduced two different variants of the procedures; there's no reason why we can't consolidate them into a single, coherent version. Kirill [talk] 21:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Works for me. Risker (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Noting that I approve of Roger's addition. Risker (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is just a merge of the two wordings in order to avoid confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Added "via a request on the /Evidence talk page" to avoid uncertainity over the proper place to make requests. It also enables other parties/onlookers to weigh in with their comments. Revert if you hate this. Roger Davies talk 22:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Housekeeping. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
General discussion
Motion regarding procedural transparency
In order to ensure that the wider community is given adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures, the following procedure is adopted:
- Modification of procedures
All changes to the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page, and shall be advertised on the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the Village Pump when first proposed. The motions shall remain open for a period of no less than one week, and shall otherwise be subject to the standard voting procedures enacted by the Committee for other motions.
Votes
- Support
-
- Proposed, based on recent concerns that we're not providing sufficient opportunity to comment on proposed changes before they're enacted. Kirill [talk] 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Per not bureaucracy. We're getting in a tizzy because clarifications and amendments get merged? Whether a Hey ArbCom, you didn't quite get it right, please fix this process is called amendment / clarifications / have a Salmonidae is just so not important. Nobody Ent 00:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Abstain
-