Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1738746-20151021052251

After the recent moot occurring, I think a review of the current moot procedure is due as well as a discussion on a moot "policy" of some sort- an idea that has been floating around for a while now. In an attempt to make this discussion as concrete as possible, I have also collected external comments (as well as comments from the recent moot) to support and explain the issues I bring up. I hope that by approaching this in an objective manner, that no one is offended or feels singled out, as well as to work towards an effective moot system based on actual evidence. On this CT however, I present only a summary of this elaborated discussion, the full discussion for those wanting to check my references or feel this summary lacks in information, can be found here. If you have any concerns about something I raise here, be sure to read the corresponding point on the blog linked above before commenting- it may answer your concern.

'''NOTE: Names in quotes are not to be focused on here- I don't want to see ad hominems occurring on this thread. Focus on the content of the quotes I provide for different points- after all, it could have been anyone who made the comment. With this, I also hope no one is offended by being quoted because again, I have focused on the content rather than the person who said it in an effort to put evidence behind the issues I raise here- I don't want people to think I'm clutching straws here.'''

Why review the moot procedure? The current moot system is one that was recently changed based on the moot having become in-formalised, which now since the moot time change, does not apply anymore, and I suggest a move back to formality as well as hopefully building on this.

Regarding Procedure

 * Moots strictly need a moot leader present. Why? Maintain order, make sure the moot goes through all its stages, keep the moot on topic, prevent previous topics already voted on in previous moots from being accidentally re-voted on. As per previous procedure, the moot leader does not need to be a sysop but does need to be someone not presenting a topic. To add, the moot leader should be someone who has prior experience with moots.
 * The floor needs to be respected at all times. When the moot leader opens up discussion for the presenter, only the presenter should be speaking until they clarify they are done presenting, and discussion may begin.
 * If presenting something that requires aesthetic changes to the wiki, presenters should have a mock up made in a sandbox page ready to show as an example. This also partially extends to presenters who have large ideas in general- preparation needs to be done beforehand to iron out the final details. If people prefer to iron out the details in moot, then it is presented as a rough idea for discussion only, and is to be re-presented in the following moot for voting.
 * Tackling the "rushed moot syndrome". It sucks to be in a moot that goes on forever, but it sucks even more to be in a short moot that ends with people not entirely sure what happened, what they voted on, what's going to happen after and end up having to re-discuss everything in the following moot for it. The moot leader is expected to help with this issue by being able to remain level-headed when users around them are calling for a fast vote. They are expected to: clearly state what the vote is for, keep people on this topic, and when the discussion has reached a natural end, then call for a vote with a clear restatement of what people are voting for. If a user calls to halt a vote due to concerns, this needs to be respected as well.
 * Ideas voted through the moot need to be final. If users have to say during voting "Oh we'll the discuss the details later", then the vote cannot go through. Why? Because then users are essentially voting for something that's going to be decided upon later with free reign. This is different for example, to an idea that is finalised and then finding problems later after it was implemented that would not have been realised had the idea not been implemented. If the idea cannot be finalised, the presenter needs to take that away, finalise it and re-present in the next moot.

Regarding "Policy"

 * Setting out the role of the moot leader and presenter as described in the procedure section, in a formalised manner.
 * Deciding whether or not to place restrictions on how many topics a given user may present in order to maintain short moot times.
 * Defining whether or not the moot is a place to vote for CT creation (as opposed to the CT just being created).
 * That the decisions made in previous moots be respected in the current moot instead of arbitrarily attempting to overthrow them in favour of a different idea. This doesn't exclude the possibility however, that certain decisions made may have had issues discovered later on and may be reviewed in a respectful manner in the current moot.
 * Defining the boundaries on the kinds of things the moot can make decisions on and what should instead be taken up as a CT.
 * "Anyone who purposely creates tension may be kicked." This needs to be extended towards making personal comments that can be construed as offensive as well as be more seriously enforced. Should a user need to bring up an issue and name a particular user(s) as a result, this needs to be handled in a very respectful manner.
 * "Respect for others is extremely important while trying to get their point across. They may argue for or against a point, or maintain neutrality and let others decide." This needs to be better enforced as well. Instead of being ignored, opposers should be having their opinions valued just as much as supporters as it is possible they are seeing something other users have missed, or in some cases, providing different alternatives to consider.

Block of text over (sorry!) :) Discuss away. 