[Cz-editcouncil] request for small change in Approvals process

[D. Matt Innis]

Martin,
   
  I have a problem understanding this:
   
  "Also ensure that at least one editor currently supports the approval of the article 
version mentioned in the approval template. If there is any reason to doubt editor
support, request clarification before doing the honors. Reasons to doubt editor
support include the nominated version not being the latest one and/or the existence of
unanswered author critiques."

  Obviously there is editor support for the approved version mentioned in the template - that editor put it there.  This seems to suggest that the version in the template will not be approved if there are changes in the draft since the approval or if an author has made suggestions.  In that case, what happens?  Will the template be removed?  If so, can we add:  In the absence of such clarification, the sysop should remove the template.  That way, if the editor is not available, at least the article won't be approved until he does - which I think this thread was about anyway.
   
  Thanks.
   
  Matt Innis
  
"M. BALDWIN-EDWARDS" <baldwin at panteion.gr> wrote:
          Dear colleague,
   
  I am forwarding a request for a small change of rules in how we Approve articles, made by Warren Schudy.We could pass this without voting, if nobody finds it controversial. Please comment. THe text is below.
   
  Martin Baldwin-Edwards
   
  The current approval process (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Process#Sysops_make_it_official_with_the_.7B.7BApproved.7D.7D_template) asks sysops to do the following before executing a pending approval:
"Examine the talk page. Make sure it's clear that there are three editors who
are in agreement about the approvability of the article, or, if it seems there
is an individual approval going on, make sure that the person approving the
article has not worked much on the article. (For that, examine the article's
history.)"

I propose replacing that text with:
"Examine the talk page. Make sure it's clear that there are three editors who
are in agreement about the approvability of the article, or, if it seems there
is an individual approval going on, make sure that the person approving the
article has not worked much on the article. (For that, examine the article's
history.) Also ensure that at least one editor currently supports the approval of the article 
version mentioned in the approval template. If there is any reason to doubt editor
support, request clarification before doing the honors. Reasons to doubt editor
support include the nominated version not being the latest one and/or the existence of
unanswered author critiques."

The rationale for this change is to ensure that sysops err on the side of not approving rather than approving when editor support is unclear. For further discussion, see http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php?topic=1563.msg14042. 

Per Larry's request, I am hereby requesting your approval for this change.

Warren Schudy
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Warren_Schudy
_______________________________________________
Cz-editcouncil mailing list
Cz-editcouncil at mail.citizendium.org
http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-editcouncil

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.citizendium.org/pipermail/cz-editcouncil/attachments/20080216/4a823b4e/attachment.html