A possible alternative to the close-reopen procedure

Question

I propose a broad discussion on a possible replacement to the current "close-reopen" (C-R) procedure, a quite detailed, not official, description of which can be found in this discussion.

As the C-R is used across SE sites, I propose we start discussing its potential replacement by the Space Exploration community, to kick-start a kind of bottom-up opinion-building.

The procedure described below aims at fulfilling the same objective as that of the C-R : a gateway to ensure that Questions meet the quality defined by the Community.

Procedure description

(numbers in [] are examples)

1. All new questions (except spams and « duplicates »), shall go through a vetting process during which no answer is accepted. Spams and duplicates can be removed, either by a Bot or by an Elected Moderator, without going through this process.

2. Request-for-Comments period: The process begins with a period of [24 hours], during which no editing to the question is allowed. Those who believe the question doesn’t meet the required quality MUST submit at least one argumented comment during this period. They are called Reviewers. Reviewers are allowed to state « not rescuable» to signal the opinion that the question is too bad to be rescued. These are called Close Reviewers, otherwise they are Open Reviewers. Reviewers shall not be anonymous.

3. If no comment is expressed, the vetting process ends, the question is Approved and is opened to Answers. If all Reviewers are Close Reviewers, the vetting process ends, the question is Discarded.

4. Consolidation period: If there is at least one Open Reviewer, a Consolidation period of [24 hours] begins. During this period, the OP has the option between : (i) submit a revised question ; (ii) request and name an Open Reviewer as an Editor to assist in submitting a revised question on his behalf. All Open Reviewers can make suggestions to the Editor (or the OP). [6 hours] before Consolidation ends, no more edit is allowed. All Reviewers and the OP must agree between themselves which is the edited version submitted, [6 hours] before Consolidation ends. Any Reviewer can sustain an objection. Option (ii) must be exercized [18 hours] before the Consolidation ends.

5. At the end of the Consolidation period, if there is no disagreement between the OP and the Reviewers, and neither between Reviewers, the vetting process ends, the (revised) question is Approved and is opened to Answers.

6. Voting period (optional): If there is a lasting disagreement, within [6 hours] after the end of Consolidation, the OP has the option to ask for a vote. For this, the OP submits one final version of the question. Failing to do so results in the question being automatically discarded. The vote is between either Approve or Discard. Decision is by simple majority and is definitive. Any member can cast a vote, anonymously. The voting lasts [48 hours]. No intermediate statistics are published during the voting.

7. Elected Moderators play no special role in this process, but can make comment, perform edit and cast votes as any other members.

---

You are invited to express your opinions in the form of pseudo-"answers" to this pseudo-"question".

I am particularly looking for opinions that go in the direction that the proposal has drawbacks, with a demonstration why.

On the other hand, if you support the idea that the C-R process needs replacing, and can be replaced, I am interested in real experiences, possible use-cases, that can show (in your opinion of course) that the C-R is not fit to the purpose it is supposed to serve.

You are welcome to propose different procedures and/or to comment on any related matters you may see. The more comprehensive we cover the subject, the better.

Answer 1

The proposed request for comment period slows the process from question to answer which is the core functionality of stack exchange:

This potentially long process seems like a distraction. If users cannot get quick, good answers then they will go elsewhere.

Additionally, this process seems confusing for new users, again making them less likely to stay and contribute. New users already tend to jump in with questions in answer posts (among other things), how can they be expected to understand and follow this 6 step bureaucracy? Every step in the process could filter potential users out (lack of patience, lack of understanding, etc.) and inhibit growth of the user base; who are the source of high quality questions and answers.

Re:

All new questions (except spams and « duplicates »), shall go through a vetting process

How do you vet a question as spam or duplicate before the vetting process?

Answer 2

I have been advised to bring this subject to SE Meta and not SX Meta (ironically with the goal for it to be downvoted quicker, not to be analyzed more deeply. This shows the seriousness and the constructiveness of the commenter).

I have contemplated of course this approach (bringing it to SE Meta directly). This would be a top-down one: decision at the top first, discussions at lower echelons later. I don't think it's a good approach, for an eventual change of this proportion. Different sites may experience different things. I am roughly familiar with SX, so I brought it to SX Meta for a first screening.

A 3-STEP ORDERLY PROCESS OF VETTING

Those who have made (hopefully) a careful reading of my proposed procedure may recognize that it has the 3 basic steps (not 6) followed by most technical committees, such as various open standards committees: Comment, Edit (correct if necessay), Commit (vote if necessary). But contrarily to what is practiced in SE, these are performed orderly, following the common-sense guidelines:

• don't use it while we debate it (don't post Answers).
• don't edit while we collect comments
• don't vote while a stable text is not ready

Each step has a clearly defined deadline (no endless talking). It's time-efficient for everybody as you do not need to revisit the site frequently to see how things evolve.

HASTE CREATES WASTE

This will be my last contribution here. I leave the conversation. My ideas are of no use to a community with so many users elevating Haste into a doctrine, a community with so many users hating discussions, especially with new users. They see this as a "distraction" (!?).

Answer 3

I see good in it that it makes the closure/reopen much more fair. More clearly, eliminates the problem of the question closures before they could be fixed.

What I dislike in it: we have various timeouts. The main problem of the site, and of all sites of the world, to increase contributions. If someone wants to answer a question, he should be able to do it any time and easily. Forbidding users to write content is shooting ourself on the foot. Contributing should be always welcomed and so easy as possible. This is our fundamental interest. Expecting answerers to wait for various timings will most likely result that the answers won't be posted.

In generally I don't see the Space SE over-moderated or unfair. Other SE sites are not so friendly, particularly the SO is quite infamous on this sense.

I see also a huge advantage of your post, that it suggests something, it wants to improve things by changing them. This is absolutely not a strong side of the current system. Unfortunately, changing the system is practically impossible - nothing essential has changed here since a decade, except some superficial (and, imho, very bad) UI changes or some constants. I see very unlikely, that the company would change here anything essentially in the foreseeable future; but I still do not think that your idea would be a wasted effort. Already thinking on improvement possibilities is already a good start.