Talk:Flow/Use cases

Votes
There seems to be an assumption that various usages are "votes". Certainly some are, such as en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Some are not, as explained at en:Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Deltahedron (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of the different languages/projects have their own ways of utilizing and interpreting the various types of RfC/RfX/XfD/!vote/strawpoll/etc. The social rules are one aspect (they vary cross-wiki now, and will continue to vary in the future - E.g. en:Wikipedia:Straw polls is a failed-guideline proposal, but many of the interlanguage links lead to Accepted Process pages), whereas the technical structure is another aspect (which should be abstractable across them all).
 * Flow needs to have an abstract (flexible) module that works for all of them. It would (off the top of my head) need to be something like:
 * Bullet-point feedback,
 * optionally divided into multiple sub-sections,
 * optionally with a limited number of pre-defined responses (eg. keep/delete/comment, or support/oppose/neutral/comment, etc),
 * and the possibility of commenting on each other's comments.
 * Those entries should all be shorter (in height) than an entire standard Flow-post.
 * It needs to be non-prescriptive regarding how those elements are utilized by the communities, and it needs to be flexible and tweakable enough that it can be used in dozens of similar and dissimilar use-cases, at any single wiki. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted. But that does not change the fact that the page currently says that XfD are votes, when in fact they very often are not.  Deltahedron (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)