Requests for comment/Closure of old RFCs

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. My vote notwithstanding, it is my understanding that the majority of users commenting here roughly agree that any RFC inactive for +/- 2 years should be closed and archived as inactive. —MarcoAurelio 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unhelpful to have a backlog of RFCs that are several years old. Why?

  • No consensus is an acceptable outcome and we should recognise this.
  • If users choose not to contribute for some years that is also an outcome that we currently don't recognise.
  • The issue at hand may be made irrelevant by changes in the meantime, including RFCs in the community at hand, technical measures, creation of new user groups (eg stewards), users leaving, etc.
  • It is unhelpful for the community as a whole to continue ruminating or being presented with issues 2-3 years old. This adds more unhealthy unnecessary background conflict
  • It is unlikely that such issues will reach a definitive outcome if they haven't within 1-2 years.
  • In small-scope RfCs, it is possible involved users may have left the encyclopedia or have been banned or moved on for other reasons

In conclusion we can't just leave RfCs open forever. If this is the case we should do this in a simple manner. In such cases the RfC has already been listed for a year so we must assume that users have chosen not to contribute. The RfC should have been publicised at the time and we shouldn't be re-publicising what is effectually spilt milk again and again. I propose:

  • RfCs that have been inactive for more than a year (ie no contributions from involved users with no definitive outcome are marked as "Closed with no consensus" or "Closed because of inactivity"
  • Such RfCs can then be moved to the "Closed RfCs" and marked as "closed because of inactivity" if needed.

I look forward to the opinions of the community. --LT910001 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]