Difference between revisions of "Talk:Policy Development"
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
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. --[[User:Ideath|Ideath]] 16:46, 18 Dec 2004 (PST) | 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. --[[User:Ideath|Ideath]] 16:46, 18 Dec 2004 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | It's kinda hard to tell. I think there should be more than add the "catigory:policy" to a page to denote that it is a policy page. [[User:Matteo|Matteo]] 20:50, 15 Feb 2006 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 21:50, 15 February 2006
Ah, policy. Now that's a nebulous area. How can we best organize policies?
It will be a significant task to transfer policies that have already been determined, yet that should be done (and copiously documented with links to relevant email discussions).
Policies that are in progress will need a way to designate them.
--Ideath 12:03, 11 Nov 2004 (PST)
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)
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)
It's kinda hard to tell. I think there should be more than add the "catigory:policy" to a page to denote that it is a policy page. Matteo 20:50, 15 Feb 2006 (PST)