User talk:NJA/Cda draft

Issues with BOLD edit

• I will go over my concerns with the wording later, as I'm very short on time right now. Sorry. NJA (t/c) 17:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here we go, Line-by-lineish. Remember, if we keep this up this will never get to the next point of implementation. I'm unsure of what's trying to be "fixed" with the series of edits.

Nominators

I'm not keen on the idea of requiring non-CDA related edits from 6 weeks. I truly preferred the previous text. Questions will be abound as to what 'unrelated to the CDA' means, and further, assuming substantial attempts to sort the issue is one of the pre-reqs, the whole 6 week bit is likely redundant and conflicting, as their edits will likely be CDA or 'pre-CDA' related.

The text reads "unrelated to the CDA nomination" - nothing 'pre' comes into it. The main point is having a time span - the current "MUST (in bold) be recent editors" is simply too ambiguous. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The next two lines are essentially summaries of the old, though I did enjoy the old text of requiring them to be made personally, and that any further sigs after 7 days are invalid. Old version was more direct and less ambiguous to me.

Where is the new ambuity? It says "must be within 7 days". I've a little more. I don't like the "personally", or anything that isn't needed - it makes me wonder why it is said? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've re-written this to keep all the text. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"The following terms and restrictions" bit is an okay summarisation, but I'm left wondering if it's necessary.

The block line simply isn't currenly in there - which has been my gripe for a while. Down below the block parag is about discussion, not about the nomination phase. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the changes to the nominators section were essentially summations, with addition of a new bit (6 weeks of unrelated Cda edits) that I don't think is good at all for the reasons noted above. Nor do I like the removal of some keys bits which were noted above. I'm leaning towards preference for the original text that has had substantial discussion and work done. Again, I'm unsure of what's trying to be "fixed", and we're making the process painful and drawn out.

Canvass

Essentially we went from a very concise and straight to the point section, to an expansive detailed instruction set that I'm unsure is needed. Remember that people tend to not read things when it gets daunting. Essentially, I can't see the issue with the old text. Again, what are we really trying to fix.

I've explained this more on the CDA talk page. WP:Canvass is a weak guideline, and i think we are brushing this under the carpet in a way. It's were all the difficulty could be, I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, the "Nominations once certified are not to be stricken" bit is important, as we're trying to say that if a nominator later changes from their default support in the !vote section to oppose or neutral, then they may do so for their !vote, but not their nomination. NJA (t/c) 12:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I misunderstood this. I've put it back in, though it's American English. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a number of things to say, but won't have the time today. One paragraph in the current cda is not clear at all to me - so won't be to others. Can you find people you trust to run it fresh through? I am extemely nevous someone is just going to run the rfc, partly to avoid further editing. If that happens there will be two rfcs running parallel.

I cannot see anything 'daunting' about my edits at all though. A line or two more for clarity is a bonus, not an issue imo. the opposite is my intention - can you compare them again? This is fixing ambiguity as i see it. There are a couple of things you've missed, but I have to go.. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it does seem as of tonight that everything was simply marked done and is being pushed towards RfC as soon as is possible. Thus instead of me being able to fully support the text and push for its acceptance, I will now have to raise concerns with it. I won't bother you with my wording issue, as I'd rather get details on yours as you have a lot more concerns than me, and honestly I'm not too troubled by the original text that you want changed so I would like expansion of why you though it was broke and needed fixed. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 21:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and address matters tomorrow (not a great weekend for time, but i should get some) but I'll revert any rfc placed this weekend. I prefered you text btw - maybe I didn't make that clar enough in the right 'slot'. I'm not happy with all the slots and ticks etc - ok in a way, but not the final stamp. Triptofish and MacDui are too biased imo, and have been since i got on board - Im sorry to put it in those terms, but it's at the stage now where i feel someone pro cda has to say it (though i know i have little respect at this juncture). I appreciate if you don't accept my amendments, but it is good you will listen to them - they are not all heel-dragging stuff, but a couple are important. Unfortunately, i will oppose a rushed cda on principle. it seems like sour grapes but consensus is more important than cda. I've stuck my neck out thus far, but i don't fancy doing it at rfc unless i really believe in this. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the Tips section too btw. " Tip for editors who are not eligible to make nominations: If you cannot convince 10 independent eligible editors of the merits of your request, such that they take it up themselves, then your request is probably without merit and should not be pursued." What do you think of it? I actually don't fully understand it, and why are we giving a Top Tip here anyway? I don't get it. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that if you'd normally not be an eligible nominator, ie 500 edits and 3 months registration, then you can try to fall back on and use this 'tip'. I don't hate it, but I don't think it's necessary, as I doubt it'd ever be used. And it just adds another possibility for people to dick around and cause trouble by making the process more complicated and unclear. Therefore, I'm not opposed to its removal. NJA (t/c) 08:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's got that element of ambiguity we should lost I think. I'll put a rationale on the talk later today, then make a deletion. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)