User talk:SchroCat/littertray 4

FAC co-ord election process

Background

Now the two RFCs on steps that allow co-ords to take steps during an FAC, and as the new FAC co-ords are now settled in and we're not going to be looking at any new elections in the short term, it seems a good time to open an initial discussion about how to deal with any future appointments. The most recent appointments were in October 2023 and the thread discussing (and !voting) contained several comments about the selection, nomination and appointment process (see Proposed new coordinators).

This is a perennial question at FAC and a topic that is raised every time a new co-ord is proposed, although by then that is always too late to have the discussion about possible changes; relevant discussions from the last few years are as follows:

FAC co-ord structure brainstorm (September 2023)
The role of FAC co-ordinator (October 2021)
Active FAC Coordinators (October 2021)
Proposed New FAC Coordinator (November 2020)

Current process

An outgoing co-ord lets the other co-ords know that they will be standing down. The remaining co-ords discuss a replacement; these are then presented to the community (via Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates) for discussion and !voting.

Discussion

If people would like to put forward ideas and suggestions on whether this represents the best path or whether alternative processes would be better, please discuss below. If some ideas take root or show general support, we can have an RfC (or multiple RFCs) afterwards if needed. I have picked some of the points from one of the previous discussions, along with explanatory prompts to start people thinking, but please fee free to add new sub-sections if there are specific points you wish to address

The status quo described above is fit for purpose

If you are broadly happy with the status quo and don't think major change would bring about an improvement, feel free to say so here

Selection of candidates

Some possibilities are by current co-ords; generated from the community; self-nominated; or a mixture of all - but any other ideas are also welcome.
Changing the process would likely entail having a new timeframe to take into account extra steps, so please explain your ideas on how this could best be managed.

Other FA processes

Should the nomination/election process include liaison with the co-ords of other FA processes?

General points and discussion

To cover anything not included in the subsections above

Discussion

Hi Mike, a very happy new year to you!

I was thinking about the FAC co-ord selection and election process over the break. It normally runs fairly smoothly, but there is always a significant number of people who have comments on the process, and this is something that could ironed out (or at least a solid consensus people can point to if there is future criticism). Do you see any problems with the above, or are there any major discussions or points that I've missed out? I'll ping a few others here first, before it goes onto FAC Talk, including the current co-ords and Sandy G, just to get their input too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the ping -- I'm at work but should be able to look at this tonight; if not might be tomorrow night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mike. There's no rush on this, so whenever is easiest and best for you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ran an RfC sort of related to this donkey's years ago, here. It was more about whether Raul should continue as FA director but I recall the order of the questions was helpful. The earlier questions were broader, so that the first question to fail to reach agreement would imply no further motions would pass (though as it happened all did pass, with gradually reducing vote counts). I think a structure like that would be helpful again -- that is, perhaps the first question should be something like "is the current approach OK (and you have the "current process" section that defines that). Subsequent questions could say "This is only relevant if the prior question fails/passes (as relevant)", perhaps.

Having said that I'm not sure how helpful it is because I don't see a natural linear sequence of questions -- if the consensus is "no, we don't like the current approach" then we have to have options. I think I might leave the number of coords out of scope -- it'll be implicitly decided by the nominations and elections, and there's no need to hardcode that number anyway, I think. Perhaps a first question to see if change is wanted is still the right approach though. I'm being called to dinner; more tonight if I have time -- sorry this is rather muddled! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept on it here are some more thoughts on the various points that have or might come up.

Should it be possible for anyone to nominate a candidate? Technically it's possible now, but because the current process means that the first time many editors at FAC hear a new coord is being suggested is when the proposal for a coord appears on WT:FAC, it would feel disruptive to propose alternatives in contradiction to the existing coords' proposed names. If we want anyone to propose a new candidate there has to be some time between the awareness that a new coord is needed and the proposal of names. I think, like RfA, it would be best if anyone proposed must have previously agreed, rather than having names suggested only for those editors to turn down the opportunity. Anyway, the key point here is not that anyone should be able to nominate, but that a gap should exist; if there's some time between announcement and "election" (however that works) then people most certainly will propose names. The section you have on "Selection of candidates" can cover all this. It would also have to cover the actual election process. Would it be an RfC structure with consensus needed at greater than 50%? What happens if there are more candidates than positions and multiple candidates have consensus at similar levels?
OK, I'll add some more prompts to that section to get people thinking about the overall process - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tenure -- I wonder if this should be included at all. The 2012 RfC's outcome on this was that it was always possible to recall a coord if they screwed up and having extra elections to reconfirm people was bureaucracy. We don't do that for admins, after all. Of course others might not agree, but is that question necessarily part of this RfC? I think it could be dealt with separately to simplify this RfC.
OK, removed - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number of coords -- I still think this should not be part of the RfC, but for different reasons than for tenure. I think this is something that should be left to the coords. I don't think we should micromanage them; they should have the freedom to figure out how the job should be done. My suggestion would be to explicitly exclude this and the question of tenure with the argument that doing so simplifies the RfC and doesn't prevent a separate RfC to address those points.
OK, removed - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your thinking is on the "liaison" bullet point -- is there a defined role you have in mind?
Not specifically, but it is something SG has raised (at least once as far as I remember, but I think more often than that). Her point was that previously there was sounding out across the various FA processes, whereas now there isn't. As this is going to be a pre-RFC discussion, rather than an RFC, it gives her (and anyone else, obviously) the chance to comment on the benefits or otherwise, and whether it should be in the RFC we'll inevitably have to have over this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the "current process" section, I would suggest asking the coords themselves to look at the wording before launching the RfC. We don't want the RfC to get sidetracked by a discussion of what the current process actually is.
Yes - that's the next step once this is in a better structure. - SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are the main points that occur to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike - I knew it was worth asking you first! a couple of answers above and I'll make a couple more tweaks before pinging the co-ords and SG for their input on the structure. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further input

Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs, FrB.TG, SandyGeorgia

Hi to you all, and happy new year to you, if I haven't already said so to you individually.

As you can see above, and as I've already discussed with Mike Christie, I've been mulling over the FAC co-ord selection and election process since the last election. As normal, it went fairly smoothly, but there was, as there always is, some comments on the process. As we currently have four co-ords in place and no immediate plans to have another election, this is probably a good time to have a discussion on some of the key points to have them ironed out, or, at least, get to a solid consensus people can point to if there is future criticism.

Above you'll see the draft discussion starter for FAC Talk. I've tried to give it a little structure for people to work within but without being too prescriptive about it all. Could you have a look though it to check I have not put anything misleading of incorrect (particularly in the Current process description)? Are there any major or minor points any of you would like in the above outline (although if you want to keep you powder dry until this goes onto FAC Talk, then that's fine too).

Process

Once I've heard back from all of you (or once you've expressed satisfaction with the state of the proposed text), I'll post to FAC Talk for comment from the wider community and put notices at the talk pages of Featured articles, Featured article review, Today's featured article (requests) and the Village pump (miscellaneous) - and if anyone has any thoughts as to any further venues, I'll be happy to add them onto the list too. Once the discussion gets to a natural point of dying down, I'll do what I did last time and put together a draft RfC here based on what came out of the discussion. I'll turn it over to you five and Mike to pick holes in it and make further suggestions until we've got a workable RfC we can drop onto the talk page. That's the theory anyway!

Thanks to you all for your time and your effort! Any thoughts are welcome to any of the above! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venues: seems a close to random selection to me, bar the Pump. GAN, being more similar to FAC than any of the others, may be a useful place to notify. I would also suggest adding F&GT and TFP, if only so they don't feel left out.

Other FA processes: It would be best to specify which ones you had in mind. When I read the draft I thought you meant all five, but when I hit Processes above it seems you only had three in mind. If other projects are to be consulted I would again stress that GAN is the one most likely to have relevant experience to share so would urge that they also, or, better, instead, be specified. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the venues seem fine. I don't see an issue with shaking GAN or the FP/FT people, but those processes are so divorced from FAC that I don't particularly think it's particularly relevant there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]