Requests for comment/Closure of old RFCs
The following request for comments is closed. My vote notwithstanding, it is my understanding that the majority of users commenting here roughly agree that any RFC inactive for +/- 2 years should be closed and archived as inactive. —MarcoAurelio 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It is unhelpful to have a backlog of RFCs that are several years old. Why?
- No consensus is an acceptable outcome and we should recognise this.
- If users choose not to contribute for some years that is also an outcome that we currently don't recognise.
- The issue at hand may be made irrelevant by changes in the meantime, including RFCs in the community at hand, technical measures, creation of new user groups (eg stewards), users leaving, etc.
- It is unhelpful for the community as a whole to continue ruminating or being presented with issues 2-3 years old. This adds more unhealthy unnecessary background conflict
- It is unlikely that such issues will reach a definitive outcome if they haven't within 1-2 years.
- In small-scope RfCs, it is possible involved users may have left the encyclopedia or have been banned or moved on for other reasons
In conclusion we can't just leave RfCs open forever. If this is the case we should do this in a simple manner. In such cases the RfC has already been listed for a year so we must assume that users have chosen not to contribute. The RfC should have been publicised at the time and we shouldn't be re-publicising what is effectually spilt milk again and again. I propose:
- RfCs that have been inactive for more than a year (ie no contributions from involved users with no definitive outcome are marked as "Closed with no consensus" or "Closed because of inactivity"
- Such RfCs can then be moved to the "Closed RfCs" and marked as "closed because of inactivity" if needed.
I look forward to the opinions of the community. --LT910001 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with the proposer, but I add to it that before closing it, should be notified users or comunities involved that in a deadline period (eg. a week before), the RfC will be closed if there is no more activity. --Zerabat (discusión) 13:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, too, bu suggest a closing deadline of half a year at least after notifications. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I fear that this RFC will not be closed for another two years. --Rschen7754 04:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support Let's run the same policy as AAR, i.e. closed after 2 years inactive. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support per Liuxinyu970226: close after 2 years inactive --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support I also ironically doubt that this RFC will be closed anytime soon. Caliburn (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support re Zerabat, though would believe that the closing proposal is in place for a month and placed at the two year level. [Easier to have a maintenance category in place that calculates two years] — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support , close after 2 years. I also agree with Zerabat, involved users should be notified before closing a RfC. --Nastoshka (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support with appropriate notification to poster before closure. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 04:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per Varnent --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support for one year. That is more than enough time to gather opinions. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Discussions, votes, etc. can not be opened forever. Although I'd say that 6 months w/o activity is enough to close them as inactive. —MarcoAurelio 08:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support - This unfair the whole process if pending to long. --— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayantanth (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- While I agree old and inactive requests should be closed, I don't think a fixed "rule" is necessary. Someone eager to evaluate the old RFCs could just determine consensus or the lack thereof and thereby remove the backlog. --Vogone (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)