Requests for comment/Change of new project process

The following request for comments is closed. Proposal too unclear. I will make a new RFC about this soon.

---

Problems

• When you propose a new project, you often have to wait years before the Sister Projects Committee decides the eligibility of your proposal. This is why I propose to replace the current sister project comittee by an elected comittee named New projects comittee. To be eligible in the committee, you must have more than 200 edits on any wiki of the Wikimedia. Elections would be on New Projects Committee/Elections.
• I also ask to change the current procedure (but keeping the same criteria):

1. It begin with a discussion phase of 2 weeks open to everyone
2. Then a week in which the comittee decides to close the proposal or open an RFC in two part:
   1. A first phase of dicussion.
   2. If the RFC is positive, the comittee open a phase of final vote and announce it (with CentralNotice ?)
3. If the vote succeeds they open a version in the incubator.
4. After this period, the project is finally a Wikimedia project !

• Page of new project proposal should be subpages of Proposals for new projects to easy navigation and prevent that the proposal page is overwritten by the Meta's project page if it becomes accepted.

Comments

• What do stewards think of this idea? --Pi zero (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Good question. We should ask. Archi38 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Hi; first of all, let me say that I appreciate the proposal in that it seeks to change a totally ineffective system to one that might actually work. Let me also say that I don't speak for all of the stewards, and that this is just my personal opinion. That said, I'm not sure that adding this responsibility to the steward group is the correct course of action. These decisions should be made by a committee - stewards are mainly here to implement consensus. I think a better way to approach this would be to reform the existing committee, making it a body which actually works. Also keep in mind, most sister project proposals will not be accepted - very rarely are new projects added, and with the exception of Wikidata, very few see wide-spread success or attention. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  @Ajraddatz I changed it but do we really need a committee just to close 98% of proposals, wich are two lines long ? Archi38 (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment For information, Me, Louis GP, Cordenth, Timlabanane and Bouki are working on the same proposal (here). Archi38 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• This proposal rests on wrong assumptions. The Sister Projects Committee is itself only a proposal, along with its policy. Also, it makes totally no sense to establish a new committee which is then given no competency (instead stewards should decide?!) --MF-W 10:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  @MF-W Oups ! Yeah just an error, I have written stewards instead of comittee. The goal is just to create an official procedure and make an active comittee. Archi38 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as creator. It will be a lot easier and faster. Archi38 (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
2.  Support inactive comittee. Louis GP gouter (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
3.  Support @Archi38 I saw your sub-page "Brouillon";) If it helps to make it accepted, I am for this process change. NotLicenced (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

   you discovered my secret project! Seriously, I launched this RCF for, that those who make proposals can be answered quickly. And you forgot to sign your message. Archi38 (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

4.  Support I can only agree with you Cordenth (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
5.  Support Good idea. I want to propose a new project since a while.Timlabanane (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
6.  Support Good idea. Gtaf (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
7.  Support It will be faster Bouki38 (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
8.  Support Much more efficient. Archi38 will you introduce you to the election ? ElCreatorDelPhoto (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

   Maybe. Archi38 (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Speaking as a former steward, I think their role is misunderstood. Stewards are not intended to be a global arbitration committee; they are tasked with the technical implementation of consensus (S). --Rschen7754 01:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

   I changed it. Archi38 (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

2. As seen above, it's not even clear what the proposal exactly is. --MF-W 13:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

   What don't you understand ? I can clarifiy my proposal Archi38 (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

3. The issue is not the inactivity/existence of such a committee. --Vogone (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

   The current procedure might work if the comittee was active. Archi38 (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

   I doubt so, new project proposals do not only require huge community interest, but also involvement by the Foundation itself and the Board of Trustees. Only a proposal with a huge amount of support will even be considered for creation and in order to determine such interest, certainly no committee is needed. --Vogone (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

   the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity. (source)

   The Foundation has to host and support the Wikimedia movement, but don't have to decide instead of the community. Archi38 (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)