Thanks Aaron,
as per our chat on Skype, my feeling is that the approval process as you describe it is still too demanding. Can we think of an alternative, more compact procedure involving RCom instead of the (potentially open-ended) discussion you refer to in 3. - 4? I suspect that if we make the review process too long and defaulting to no approval, researchers will end up bypassing whatever rule we ask them to comply with (e.g. they will start recruiting via user talk pages no matter what we say is acceptable). Moreover if all approval decisions in the end depend on individual editors with the power of vetoing proposals, the RCom has no specific role other than advising/supporting requests. I wonder if an alternative solution with RCom preliminary reviewing and clearing proposals and community members having a given number of days to raise issues not discussed by the RCom (defaulting to approval) would be acceptable.
Steven, Ziko, WSC, and other community members on RCom – I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
Dario
On May 17, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
Hey folks,
I've stripped the majority of content about "SRAG" from a draft of a Subject recruitment policy that I've been working on. I hope that by minimizing the policy we can reduce the overhead of SRAG if at all possible. I think the refactored product is ready for feedback and edits. Please have a look: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EpochFail/Research_recruitment
See also the guideline for on-wiki research (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EpochFail/On-wiki_research).
-Aaron _______________________________________________ RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l