I have a question. Is this concept of consensus, and the steps to arrive at it, aimed primarily at technical endeavors? Do you think this should jive with the policy of Consensus on English Wikipedia? Is there anything between the two that could be related? Ckoerner (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there is definitely a relationship there. There's a lot more that I have to say on this (as I refine my thoughts), but generally, feel free to add the link in the appropriate spot in the page. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Levels of consensus
The whole concept of "consensus" is nebulous. To some, it means unanimity or near-unanimity. To others, it might mean "nobody vetoes it". Sometimes it is confused with a majority vote. It could be defined as something like "Nobody rates this a 2 or lower, and at least half rate it at 6 or higher".
The concept of Gradients of agreement tries to put a framework around consensus. The Team Practices Group is experimenting with these consensus rules: Team Practices Group/Team Norms#Gradients of Agreement. Those rules seem to work well with a 5-10 person team, but probably wouldn't be appropriate for a large community.
There isn't a single right answer, and a single group might even use different criteria for different types of decisions. It is important, however, to have a shared understanding of what "consensus" means on the topic at hand, ideally before the measurement starts. --KSmith (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Strawmen, straw men, and straw dogs
Both to avoid confusion with strawman arguments, and to be gender-neutral, I favor "straw dog" over " straw man". I'm not quite bold enough to make the change myself. --KSmith (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)