Wikipedia talk:PC2012/Committee

Suggestions
Feel free to add your own:


 * Introduce yourself, or talk about what you like to do on Wikipedia.
 * Don't say "Support, no problems that I can see" or "Oppose, there are no good reasons for deployment" ... or anything else that implies that you haven't read and don't intend to read the arguments of the other side. Those are perfectly valid positions to take, if you feel you've heard enough and your work is done ... but that means you're in the wrong place; we're here to discuss things.
 * Remember that people always dismiss feedback if they haven't had a chance to speak their mind, and RfCs don't give people that chance. Voters are conditioned by Wikipedia's voting culture to keep comments short, and that approach doesn't work for hard problems. Encourage people to say more rather than less. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How it will work
How do we see this committee working? Is the idea to write a policy on the use of PC2 on PC2012/Committee and use Wikipedia talk:PC2012/Committee to discuss it. That would make sense. Or perhaps PC2012/Committee could also contain other stuff that anyone can edit (as opposed to comments by individuals, which should be left alone). Not 100% sure what other stuff there would be. Maybe a set of observations on PC2012/RfC 1? Maybe PC2012/Committee could contain a rationale for the policy? Actually, I like that idea, policy with rationale, side-by-side.

Yaris678 (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * After everyone has had their say, if we're lucky, the format won't matter much, we'll be largely agreed. Btw ... I've asked the two opposers in the 11-2 vote if they have any objections to boxing up the RfC while we wait for The Blade's closing statement. If and when the page is boxed up, I hope people will start making comments here ... I'll wait till the closing statement before I weigh in. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the closing statement at WP:PC2012/RfC 1, we've got a while before further discussion on PC/2 will be needed ... thanks for your participation, everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)