Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-25356303-20180917175234/@comment-25356303-20180920135225

The issue here is partially that reviewing article status nominations properly takes a while longer than something like a moot decision. Lore articles in particular require a lot of effort to scour through, checking all the references for accuracy. One of the reasons the Circle failed was because the only time the group was ever on Chat at the same time was the moot, and by the time the planned moot decisions were finished, no one felt like voting on status article nominations.

I agree that encouraging consensus through discussion would be a better system than only using votes. A pure voting system sort of discourages nuanced ideas. Perhaps we could return to votes using the project pages—a more fitting medium for longer discussions—but with the stipulation that there is no immediate vote on anything. Instead, we would talk about the merits of each article first and the ways they each need to be improved. Once we have reached a conclusion there, we would vote on it to solidify the ordeal.