Risker wrote:
Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
Risker
It is really about time that Wikipedia regulated the means by which policy changes are made.
Personally, I've long been in favour of a policy making body. However, I understand many people prefer the "consensus model".
But even if we stick to the consensus model, we perhaps should have a regularised means for closing the discussion and ruling where consensus lies. When we have an afd, an uninvolved admin closes. When the community considers adminship, a crat calls consensus.
Is there a need for the selection of a group of trusted users who can be called upon to to declare (after discussion) when a policy change has consensus has been made?
Perhaps we should have [[Wikipedia:Requests for policy change]], where an uninvolved crat or arb, or new class of user, closes the debate.