Wikiversity talk:Community Review/CR process discussion/Resolutions

The resolutions seem to assume that CRs are about policy changes, but then some of the commenting seems to assume that it's about users. --Abd 15:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The proposals are silent about how a resolution to be presented to the community is formed. Only mature resolutions should be placed in the site notice, which means that they have found their best form. Standard deliberative process pays a great deal of attention to this. With the requirement for two established users to support, we are making a good step toward cleaner and more efficient process. We will need to define "established user." Certainly any custodian is an established user. What about someone who was a regular user five years ago, but who hasn't edited since then?

We do not have to nail down all the details ab initio.--Abd 15:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

A draft CR in user space would establish no timing. There should be no deadline for them. The user whose space it is should have quasi-administrative control over what is in his or her user space. It's been argued that these would be used to harass. Harassment is against policy no matter where the harassing text is located. While we should give great freedom to users as to what they host in their own user space, that is not a carte blanche.

When the CR has gained the approval of a second established user, and they judge it ready to move to WV space, one clock would start ticking, but that might be a long clock. It should be a separate decision to place a CR in the site message. At the minimum, this would take a custodian, not one of the original two who file, who agrees that the community should see the CR. We have many custodians who can do this. If we don't, we need to get more custodians.

Too many CRs in the site message, participation will drop. The CR itself can discuss when to place it in the site message. At that point, there should be developed evidence and argument on all major positions. Premature placement will reduce participation, and will, at the same time, encourage knee-jerk !voting without consideration of arguments.

Placing it in the site message is tantamount to going to a vote, which is the last step in standard deliberative process. Under Robert's Rules, it takes a two-thirds vote to close debate and go to a vote on the main motion!

The key to the experiment done, and to improving this process, is to create a document that shows clear evidence and argument, that then asks the community to resolve the issue, in a way that, in the future, we know why it was done, it's clear and relatively concise. I'd expect a good CR to spend quite a bit of time working on drafting resolutions, amending them, etc.

As to closing the CR, the second clock would start when the CR goes in the site message. 7 days is a bare minimum, I'd say. If consensus is obvious at seven days, it could be closed. But if approval of a resolution is short of 2/3, roughly, it should be open for another week. After the week elapses, there should be a close. Ideally, this is a neutral close, but that can be tricky. The close itself should represent a consensus about the result. It should carefully avoid being an argument for the result. It should, however, state what appear to be the reasons for the result, as a reporter might state them.

There are many details from standard process that can be incorporated, such as how a resolution can be reconsidered expeditiously, how to insure that debate takes place fairly and covers issues completely, and so on.

I am not claiming that Robert's Rules of Order is controlling! It is not. But we neglect the centuries of experience, incorporated in standard process, at our peril. We have seen much disruption resulting from not having clean and effective process in place. --Abd 15:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see that the current review is in the site notice, under Resolutions. The Resolutions are based, to some extent, on discussion in the WV:Community Review/CR process discussion page, but that is not clearly referenced, and the process by which the Resolutions came to be drafted and presented is unclear to me. It seems to be one person who drafted them. There was no discussion of the process, on-wiki, AFAIK. Given that there is substantial opposition expressed, the opposition should have been given an opportunity to amend the resolutions, before they were presented to the community, so that, if possible, there was a higher level of consensus.

We are bypassing careful process. It might be harmless, or it might cause continued disruption from those who might think that the Community was led into making hasty decisions. Procedurally, the site notice was set by Jtneill, so the formal requirement that I've been proposing was met. But that doesn't mean that this was ready, and a good CR process would give guidance to the site-notice acting custodian was to when it would be ready.

This is not an argument against the resolutions presented. --Abd 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Still "learning by doing" here... a few of the resolutions seem to have general support with reservations about the language. I'm going to try moving the amended versions here for a bit before re-introducing them on the main resolutions page as subheaders. The action-focused approach on resolutions seems to be a good way to move so far. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The main page of a community review will:

1. Begin with a brief statement which explains the purpose of the review.
2. Have a list of questions with yes/no answers. Questions can be added as indicated by the statements of the participants.
3. Have statements by individual contributors about the topic, under their own headings, not to exceed 700 words. Threaded and long-form discussions should take place on the talk page. Statements may contain links to other discussions or longer statements on another page.

• This works just as well for me, though I do think it would be better to focus on policies (as opposed to one-off actions). R3/R3a gives us a basic structure for what the main page of a review looks like. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  I suggest two types of actions can and perhaps should be considered, sort term and long term actions. What actions do people want to see happen right now? What actions do people want to see happen to address similar situations in the future? BTW I would support replacing all the other resolutions you proposed with the above resolution. The only thing missing would be the minimum and maximum times for a review to be open for. -- darklama  14:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Fair enough... I'd prefer to move in a direction that's focused on ways forward rather than case by case decisions, but that's just a preference (and I suspect I'm in the minority on that anyway).

  Just to clarify though: do you support this particular resolution in the new language? --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  I support looking for ways to move forward. I suggest working on policy though is in most cases not going to be the best way to move forward. Moving forward by means of policy all the time will only encourage people to resolve problems through proposing new policies instead of compromise. I think we should assume most problems are the result of a failure to compromise by default and not due to lack of sufficient policy.

  The new language could use a bit of tweaking, but I support what I believe to be the spirit of it.

  1. Begin by briefly explaining what the purpose of the review is. We recommend you focus on evaluating your experience at Wikiversity.
  2. Add simple questions that can be evaluated with yes/no answers. Questions can be added in response to statements by participants.
  3. Each participant should add a new subsection for their own statement. Statements should not exceed 700 words. Statements may link to discussions and longer statements on another page, such as the talk page.
  4. Reviews are to remain open until at least 1 month has passed without any new ground being covered.

  -- darklama  15:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  I don't think there's full agreement yet on when to close, so let's just stick to what we agree on for now and see what happens with the closure. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Fair enough. I included 4 just to show what I was getting at before. -- darklama  15:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Okay. I actually like your 4th point (and we might reach it in one of the other resolutions anyway), but this is where I'm going with the "narrow scope" thing: there's a lot to be done, so getting the things we do agree on out of the way can help prevent things from bogging down (as they are wont to do hereabouts) ;-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  I realized I missed something important. "Reviews are to find common ground and to learn what people agree on." That should go before 1. -- darklama  16:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  That probably should go with (or replace) the resolution regarding the not-written-in-stone thing. See above (edit conflict). --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  The wording looks good to me. Is this one ready for inclusion on the page? --mikeu ^talk 13:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Already there for a few days (you actually voted on it!), but I think it's probably ready to be amended to the CR Policy page too. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Perhaps mikeu is referring to the new language I proposed? -- darklama  13:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  That's what's on the page... --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  I must be missing it, because I only see your wording on the page. -- darklama  13:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Except for the 4th point, they're yours. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  This is getting silly. Resolution 3(a) uses the wording you proposed at the top of this section. The wording I proposed is not used at all. -- darklama  15:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Ohhh, I see it. Actually the wording is from Jtniell... I guess I didn't notice the things you added to 1 and 3 (sorry about that... the 4th part was what stuck out!). I really don't have any preference for either version (yours or Jtniell's). I'd very much like to move on though. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suggest:

If a contributor's section exceeds 700 words, any editor may remove the material in that section, with a neutral and civil reference to the contributor's section, as it was before removal, shown in the latest permanent version in history. The contributor may then re-add material up to the 700 word limit, total. A contributor may also consent to refactoring by another editor, to present the contributor's position succinctly.

The point of this is to avoid useless argument over how over-limit contributions are handled. This proposal clearly does not treat removal as censorship, and is silent on the value of the removed contribution, which is not truly removed, it's just effectively collapsed to a link. This may encourage contributors making voluminous contributions to condense them, in what they replace. If they go over 700 words in their "condensation," it may again be removed, burying their original contribution. Natural consequences! In the end, if it's a mess, they can fix it. Under 700 words! --Abd 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, the easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just move the comment to a new section on the talk page (leaving a link behind). --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why it's simpler, and it's not ideal. It, in fact, creates more comment on the Talk page! Which, then, invites reply there, and it can spin out, when, the purpose here is to avoid such train wrecks. SBJ, I'd like you to consider what I write. If I explain in detail the first time, you complain about the length. If I don't, you make comments that show you didn't really consider the issue. What I have proposed creates no mess at all, it's simple and it's clean. It works because response isn't threaded in the comment sections, so the reference to history is clean, can go right to the relevant section, no fuss.

Personally, I'd vastly prefer what I suggested, being done to a comment of mine. It's hard for you to dredge up 700 words, so your preference probably doesn't matter! What I suggested is, in fact, simpler, it takes less editing. You pull up the permanent link to the current CR page, going to the section directly. Then you edit the current page, and replace the whole section with the link and an explanation, we could even specify it. Save it and it's done. You want to edit two pages! --Abd 20:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Moving the thing over to the talk page would achieve the same goal, and also allow others to offer suggestions on how to make the statement more concise. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

It will fill up the Talk page with comments that were already considered too long! Nothing prevents anyone from referencing an "archived" comment like this, on Talk, even copying the whole thing, if they want to, but I'm saying that, as someone who would have been most likely to be affected by the 700 word limit, I greatly prefer the archiving step, which has a side benefit of keeping the text with the page. While a Talk page is usually not moved separately from the regular page, it happens. Because archiving to history takes only one edit, I'm recommending that this be the default practice. If editors whose work is so archived then want it on Talk, they can easily add it there. That's one more edit. In other words, what I'm suggesting is half the work, but if copying to the talk page is needed, it's then the same work. It's amazing to me that you'd argue with this, SBJ.

If it's copied to Talk, and the editor doesn't want it there, but someone responds to it, what do you do? More work. --Abd 03:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I actually like this, though I am actually with Leighblackall personally maintaining neutrality. I think "deconstruction" into wiki-bytecode might be an approach to force onto long-winded editors exactly what it is that they are trying to say to give them a chance to amalgamate their their thoughts and reconstruct them into prose making them better editors. Moving text is problematic as it may resemble censorship, though is necessary at times!--JohnBessa^talk 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Resolutions to address any actions or changes that seem appropriate in light of the discussions on the main page and talk page should be listed on a subpage. Comments on the resolutions page should be kept brief (at most three lines), be on-topic, and clearly indicate the contributor's desire to Support, Oppose, Amend, Concede, or Abstain.

• Comment: introducing this because R4 was too broad (and in some ways too specific). CR policy already has instructions about scope and notification, but it doesn't mention a resolutions page (which seems to be working out fairly well). --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Community Reviews will be closed if no new ground is covered for 1 month. Unresolved issues may be addressed in a new Community Review. Old issues may be raised in a new Community Review if there is something new to be contributed, or if the resolutions of an older review have caused unintended problems.

• Comment: based on what I saw of an IRC discussion last night. --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Full description of JWS !voting in this CR is archived to history at [1]. --Abd 19:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Opposing every resolution without discrimination or compromise, JWS copied to each comment a standard rant:

"Community Review" is a misnomer and a failed system that was imported from another wiki website. After the Hostile Takeover of Wikiversity Community Review was forced upon the Wikiversity community. "Community Review" and all the other disruptive influences of SB Johnny and his buddies should be removed from Wikiversity and nullified. The currently active bureaucrats should resign, along with all policy-violating sysops. The honest Wikiversity community members who were driven away by the Hostile Takeover should be brought back and those who had their tools removed by bogus emergency desysop procedures when there was no emergency or who resigned their tools in protest/disgust after the Hostile Takeover should be given back their tools. Wikiversity should return to holding important discussions at the Colloquium.

JWS subscribes to the Bad Actor view of history, that assigns blame for community problems to Bad Actors, and if they would just go away, everything would be fine. In some versions, this becomes "If they are banned," everything will be fine. It's naive, and typically leads, should those who hold this view manage to become dominant, to repetitions of the old problems with new faces. The view allows people to avoid facing their own responsibility for problems, the failures to act that are behind "Bad Actors" maintaining power, if that's actually the problem. We are all responsible for the condition of Wikiversity, through errors of omission or errors of commission. Complaining about others will not solve the problems. Taking responsibility will. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Then, to each copy, he added some unique comment, though in one case (resolutions 2 and 3), he used almost exact additional text.

1. If someone has something on their mind they should be free to take it to the relevant Wikiversity page or the Colloquium, not have to first start a page in their user space.

The CR does not replace normal Wikiversity discussion, so it's clear that JWS has not understood what is being proposed. While the proposal suggests starting a CR in user space, that is only for it to see a support added, minimally. Nothing prevents people from taking "something on their mind" to the Colloquium or the "relevant Wikiversity page." We are talking about a formal process that more actively solicits community participation, not a forcing of the expression of concerns into a straightjacket. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

2. If "Community Review" needs to be artificially limited to narrow topics then that is just one more example of its failings. "Community Review" should not be used as a substitute for the normal process by which the community develops needed policies.

Nothing prevents the "normal process" from taking place. Policy pages may be edited normally. CR is designed to find and validate wider consensus than normal discussion, when normal process breaks down, as it obviously can. If the normal process works, there is no need for CR. Then, the limitation of a CR to a "narrow topic" is simply standard deliberative process, based on centuries of experience. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

3. If "Community Review" needs to be artificially structured as proposed in this "resolution" then that is just one more example of its failings.

Democratic organizations above a small number of members learned, over the centuries, that, without structure, discussions, which expand as the square of the number of participants, become dysfunctional with scale. In real organizations where structure is lacking, most participants bail, stop participating, because it becomes entirely too tedious. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

4. Simpler alternative proposal: Anyone like SB Johnny who has vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community should stop trying to force on Wikiversity failed ideas like "Community Review".

Personal attack on SBJ, ad hominem argument. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

5. "we have a bad track record of passing policies" <-- The problems with Wikiversity policy started when SB Johnny decided that he did not have to follow Wikiversity policy and he started forcing upon Wikiversity policies from other websites. SB Johnny's schemes for ever more absurd rules for "Community Review" are not a solution, they will just continue the problem that he created.

Personal attack on SBJ, ad hominem argument. --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

6. I'm tempted to ask for a definition of what a "resolution" is and what resolutions have to do with the mission of Wikiversity, but it would be far easier for everyone to simply return to having normal wiki community discussions and stop trying to salvage the failed "Community Review" idea.

"Normal wiki discussions" have continued for more than two years, since the "Hostile Takeover," and they have not resolved long-term problems. Community Reviews have often not led to conclusions precisely because they were hijacked by tendentious debate, and the process proposed here is designed to make issues clear, so that the evidence and the points made don't get buried in rubbish. JWS did not participate in this review itself, He did not add a comment section of his own. He's only nay-saying, now, every proposed conclusion, with mostly irrelevant argument, ignoring the actual consensus that has been appearing, not seeking agreement, only complaining about the past. He's been doing this for two years, to what effect? --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

7. Alternative proposal: stop wasting the time of Wikiversity community members by forcing upon them failed ideas like "Community Review" and systems of rules for "resolutions" and other bureaucratic structures.

It's up to "Wikiversity community members" if a process wastes their time or not. Process rules do not necessarily set up "bureaucratic structures," they are a set of procedures that a community adopts so that people know what to do if they encounter problems, so that the community can attend to substance instead of hassling over process every time. However, most organizations or committees do set up a chair, who makes process decisions, always subject to review by the members. We rely upon the administrative corps to do this, but, really, the function of a chair should be separated from "enforcement," because the duty of a chair is to serve the community by seeking maximized consensus, partly by ensuring the rights of minorities. A chair is ideally elected by supermajority, though, technically, majority vote is enough. We might consider this. It's tricky on a wiki. (ArbComm is the closest thing Wikipedia has to a "chair," and arbitrators mostly don't understand the reasons why it's a Bad Idea for arbitrators to be personally blocking, etc. Wikipedia has not selected high-level administrators based on expertise at dispute resolution, unfortunately, but on popularity, mostly Lack of Controversy.... Better process is going to take some work, but it need not be complicated.) --Abd 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: This doesn't actually seem to be disrupting the process, though it does point out the need to perhaps keep resolution comments very short. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

How do you "keep" resolution comments short? Who has the "need"? Here, JWS copied the same rant to every comment, making all of his comments long, but not on point to the resolution being addressed except for the few words added at the end. This isn't Wikipedia, but he'd be blocked in a flash for doing similar on Wikipedia and for good reason. In any case, WV is for learning, and I'm learning lots of disruptive tricks to use if I ever want to disrupt. Why should I bother being succinct, if I can actually overwhelm a page with repeated walls of text? I previously imagined that to write a wall of text, I had to actually create some new content, but, obviously, it's much more efficient to recycle it. Congratulations on your forward-thinking and forthright approach, SBJ.

I answered the issues he raised, here. Perhaps I should go back and amend all my comments to add that discussion of the issues? Surely I can take as much space as JWS! You deserve what you get, below, just not for the reasons JWS states. --Abd 19:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see it as disrupting the process because I saw perfectly reasonable and constructive contributions being made after his contributions. However (after further thought), I can see why it might discourage those who haven't weighed in from weighing in. Personally, I tend to read the first sentence of his posts, and only read more if the first sentence makes me think that there might be something insightful in the rest of the post.

Limiting the comments on the resolutions page to 2 or 3 lines would at least force him to make his point more concisely, and make it easier for people (who haven't had enough experience with him to just skip to the next comment) to simply read his input and move on to the next person's input.

As far as blocking, banning, etc.: I really don't have much of an opinion (he doesn't bother me, but then again I don't tink he has much to offer lately either). --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "the need to perhaps keep resolution comments very short" <-- The Ruling Party has no interest in true community discussion...they've worked too hard driving away the honest members of the community....still, there is the risk that someone might speak the truth and mention how the Ruling Party has vastly disrupted Wikiversity and should resign. Of course, the Ruling Party will try to engineer more special rules to prevent free discussion and examination of how they continue to disrupt the Wikiversity community. personal attack <-- Discussion of the abusive and disruptive behavior of Wikimedia Functionaries is not a personal attack. It only further disrupts Wikiversity when Drama Queens try to prevent discussion of the vast disruption of Wikiversity that has been caused by SB Johnny and the abusive sysops who gather around him. "Disruption of voting process?" <-- Decisions at Wikiversity are made by community discussion, not voting by regimented drones. The Wikiversity Main Page should include a description of how SB Johnny assisted a gang of policy violators from Wikipedia to disrupt Wikiversity and impose a Hostile Takeover on what was intended to be a peaceful community of collaborating learners. Until there is some kind of Truth and Reconciliation process the Wikiversity community will not recover from the Hostile Takeover and the goon squad will continue to strut around disrupting the Wikiversity community while fondling their tiny banhammers. --JWSchmidt 14:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

“

Every Sunday, mourning, over WVBD ... B&D s’fargenigen. B&D s’men ken a bootkick krigen. A schnook, a Kort, a drama queen. Brengt areyn dayn klenem zing.

”

[Source: Red Buttons via The Barton Brothers' 1940's Borscht Belt comedy sketch "Joe and Paul" with Klezmer music accompaniment by Sholom Secunda, courtesy of the NPR Yiddish Radio Project.]

Looking over this this morning, I think we can close a few of the resolutions for now:

• R1: no consensus or movement towards consensus, so can be tabled.
• R2: no consensus, but perhaps could be amended.
• R3: dropped in favor of R3a
• R3a: broad support, can be adopted.
• R4: broad opposition, can be tabled, though at least some description of resolutions pages would be helpful.
• R5: broad support, can be adopted.
• R6: broad support, can be adopted.
• R7: no consensus, but perhaps can be amended.

That's as far as my thinking goes this morning :-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would agree with that assessment. --mikeu ^talk 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Any suggestions for amended wording on R2 or R7? --mikeu ^talk 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I had made some suggestions above. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• R2 Original language: Community Reviews should be narrow in focus, and aimed at clarifying, refining, or changing a Wikiversity policy or guideline.
• First of all, I read the !vote as 5 support, 1 amend, 4 oppose, and 2 neutral. Removing "narrow in focus" might pull in some of the Oppose, but not please some of the supports. Rather, I'd suggest understanding the operation of "narrow" could be useful. If a CR were considered too broad, the drafter, at that stage, might be encouraged to narrow it, perhaps to create more than one Review with narrower focus. I don't think that if there were no clear way to do this, that therefore the Review would be closed! "Should be" indicates desirability, not rigid requirement.
• Within a Community Review, questions may be posed. These questions should be narrow! Ideally, they should be designed for Yes/No !voting.
• I'd suggest this language:

• Community Reviews should aim for narrow focus, to establish, clarify, refine, or interpret a Wikiversity policy or guideline. Issues not yet clear enough for a decision-making process should be discussed at the Colloquium or other appropriate page, before moving to Community Review. Generally, if there is prior discussion, it should be referenced when a Review is created.

• I haven't checked to see if this is redundant to other proposals. --Abd 22:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• R7 Original language: Community reviews will be closed if they have had no changes for a month, or that have already produced 7 proposed resolutions. Unresolved issues should be addressed in a new Community Review.

• This had no support as-is, and my question about it is why we want to establish any special CR closing process at all. There are so many contingencies that it's difficult to cover them all. We might want to establish a general period for a CR to normally remain open, but snow closes prior to that are possible, and an active CR shouldn't be closed just because it hits some limit. On the other hand, a CR that seems active just because one user is adding stuff, or two editors are debating, without any change in apparent overall position, might be closed. It's all a judgment of the closer, and what the community will accept in a close. As CR is moving, here, toward CR for policy/guidelines only, CR simply may fail or may establish some revised policy or guideline. If the CR consensus is clear, it then becomes more difficult to justify major changes without substantial discussion, but, again, no rigid policy is like to serve well. We just saw an editor blocked for making a change to a policy, but the change wasn't really to the policy, but was a use of the policy page for soapboxing about the alleged abusive implementation process. If the editor had made an apparent good-faith change to the page, the editor might have been reverted with little fuss, or, at most, warned. We don't want to make it difficult to improve policies and guidelines! So I recommend just dropping R7 for now, and we might edit the page later to add a standard time. The minimum is a week, to allow for editor time schedules, that's what I've followed in on-line process, typically bumping it up to 8 or 10 days to allow some slop. WP XfD is 10 days. It's always possible to extend something, and with low common participation at WV, a month might be advisable. Longer than a month is unlikely to attract more participation, but, perhaps, we could have a rule about keeping a discussion open one week after the last new comment, if it's close, i.e., if a few more !votes might shift it.
• The longer a CR is open, the more it is reasonable to decide it by majority !vote, after things like canvassed votes and other oddities are considered. Heretical, I know, I know. But that's the conclusion I came to after more than 30 years of participation in consensus organizations. When the status quo favors a minority, any decision rule requiring greater than majority support becomes a form of minority rule, the opposite of the intention of seeking consensus. I have seen this, many times, lead to the demise of consensus organizations! --Abd 22:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply