I think discussion will probably usually be sufficient. Using upvotes and downvotes as info seems useful, but probably not letting them be decisive.
It may also help if inclusion criteria are more specific and are not hidden until a dispute arises.
This might just be a case where written communication on the internet makes the tone seem off, but āhiddenā sounds to me unfair and harsh. That seems to imply Pablo already knew what the inclusion criteria should be, and was set on them, but deliberately withheld them. This seems extremely unlikely.
I think itās more like the wiki is only a few months old, and thereās (I think) only one person paid to put substantial time into it, so weāre still figuring out a lot of policies as we goāI think Pablo just had fuzzier ideas, and then was prompted by this conversation to make them more explicit, and then was still clearly open to feedback on those criteria themselves (rather than them already being set).
I do agree that it will help now that we have possible inclusion criteria written up, and it would be even better to have them shown more prominently somewhere (though with it still being clear that theyāre tentative and open to revision). Maybe this is all you meant?
I didnāt have in mind to sound harsh. Thanks for pointing this out: it now seems obvious to me that that part sounds uncharitable. I do appologise, belatedly :(
What I meant is that currently these new, evolving inclusion criteria are difficult to find. And if they are used in dispute resolutions (from this case onwards), perhaps they should be referenced for contributors as part of the introduction text, for example.
Thanks for the feedback. I have made a note to update the Wiki FAQ, or if necessary create a new document. Feel free to ping me if you donāt see any updates within the next week or so.
I think discussion will probably usually be sufficient. Using upvotes and downvotes as info seems useful, but probably not letting them be decisive.
This might just be a case where written communication on the internet makes the tone seem off, but āhiddenā sounds to me unfair and harsh. That seems to imply Pablo already knew what the inclusion criteria should be, and was set on them, but deliberately withheld them. This seems extremely unlikely.
I think itās more like the wiki is only a few months old, and thereās (I think) only one person paid to put substantial time into it, so weāre still figuring out a lot of policies as we goāI think Pablo just had fuzzier ideas, and then was prompted by this conversation to make them more explicit, and then was still clearly open to feedback on those criteria themselves (rather than them already being set).
I do agree that it will help now that we have possible inclusion criteria written up, and it would be even better to have them shown more prominently somewhere (though with it still being clear that theyāre tentative and open to revision). Maybe this is all you meant?
I didnāt have in mind to sound harsh. Thanks for pointing this out: it now seems obvious to me that that part sounds uncharitable. I do appologise, belatedly :(
What I meant is that currently these new, evolving inclusion criteria are difficult to find. And if they are used in dispute resolutions (from this case onwards), perhaps they should be referenced for contributors as part of the introduction text, for example.
Thanks for the feedback. I have made a note to update the Wiki FAQ, or if necessary create a new document. Feel free to ping me if you donāt see any updates within the next week or so.