Talk:Policy Development

So, what policies are big enough to work on/store here? Our policy to (for example) destroy MS software when it appears? Our "bad dogs" policy? A policy can be finally approved by council (or staff? or a working group?) - i doubt there'd be a good way to conclusively reach consensus in this (or other digital) venue. So the only thing that would move items off this page and onto the Policies page would be a meeting of some sort; updating the wiki would have to be a commitment of one person at that meeting.
And about a Policies page - would it be useful to distinguish between policies and guidelines? Policy and custom? --Ideath 12:22, 18 Nov 2004 (PST)

do we need a taxonomy of policy vs. procedure, process, norm, guideline? (some of the policies as approved by council or staff have veered into implementation and procedure. is it the duty of the documentors here to abstract from that the policy?) many of our most cherished rules are norms (like "if you're violent, you get kicked out") - do we need to legislate them? --Ideath 11:38, 3 October 2006 (PDT)

titles of proposed policies

Perhaps the proposed policy could be titled something like Policy on something-or-other PROPOSED and then when it is accepted the page could be moved to Policy on something-or-other. The talk pages would then be the place for discussion of further revisions.

For me, this goes back to (lengthy) editorial discussions on e2 about proper naming. I don't think the "Policy" part of the title is necessary, especially here, where the page can (and should) be categorized as policy. It's awkward, especially if it's in capital letters. Titling proposed policies with PROPOSED is ok because these are in a state of active development and 'should' be annoyingly awkward until they are resolved. I figure it's best to title a page what it's about, define the topic on that page, and include the relevant policy. --Ideath 16:46, 18 Dec 2004 (PST)

Checking in, two years later: still against unnecessary namespacing. In looking at the policies yesterday, it seems like there are subjects where the matter of the page will be the policy (Limits on Vacation Accrual, Eligibility for Council), and that it would be awkward for linking, searching, and writing to add "Policy" to all of those titles. For other subjects, where perhaps there's procedure or other important exegesis of FG culture to detail, the Subject Name page would be usefully different from the Subject Name Policy page (see Group volunteering and the Group Volunteering Policy). The way i'm thinking, Asking for Vacation Policy should just be Asking for Vacation. Make sense? --Ideath 11:38, 3 October 2006 (PDT)

It's kinda hard to tell. I think there should be more than add the "category:policy" to a page to denote that it is a policy page. Matteo 20:50, 15 Feb 2006 (PST)

I think your header is swell. --Ideath 11:38, 3 October 2006 (PDT)

Policy (re)development

As we mine the archives for documentation of our policies, we will learn more about how our memories have evolved our policies to fit our current situation - and we'll also unconver decisions made by the people we were in the distant past, which fit the distant past situation of free geek, yet do not fit the current situation. We may want a category for policies that need updating, a way for people to mark policies that may be out of date, so we don't end up with a bunch of useless documentation of policies that make no sense for our current situation. These policies could be brought to council with proposals for updates or retooling. --Ideath 11:38, 3 October 2006 (PDT)

I totaly agree, would this Process work?:

• Gather the as mutch historical and current implementation if the policy (and document)
• Tag the document [[Category:Policy Review]]
• On the Talk page suggest a more current wording
• Email your Findings to the group(s) this would effect.

For council we could bundle a couple related ones. Email the list 2 weeks befor a meeting (puting it on the ajenda). Just to be safe when the ajenda comes out, attach a link to last email to it.

Matteo 12:39, 3 October 2006 (PDT)