Editing Project:Village pump (proposals) (section)

====5. What should the deployment conversation look like?====

Some of you said that an RfC would be the best approach for the conversation around deployment. Does that sound like the right course of action? One thing that we have been thinking about is ways to include the voices of readers into the decision making process. We are planning to run surveys asking readers what they think about the new skin compared to the old one. How can we incorporate their thoughts into the conversation?

[[user:OVasileva (WMF)|OVasileva (WMF)]], [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|talk]]) 01:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

:Amazing work! [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 05:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
:You could run a banner that provides an opt-in button for the new skin only visible for unregistered users, but then I'm not sure how they'd be able to leave feedback anonymously. The RfC could then be run in parallel with this campaign, with the ultimate decision relying on the inputs from both. [[User:Anarchyte|<span style="color:#202122;font-family:Trebuchet MS">Anarchyte</span>]] ([[User talk:Anarchyte|<span style="color:#202122">talk</span>]]) 06:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
::{{tq|with the ultimate decision relying on the inputs from both}} How would this work? Who gets to decide how much to weight each if they conflict? I don't foresee the community willingly relinquishing control, so as much as I'm concerned that the community isn't going to follow [[WP:READER]] and is going to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/2020_left_sidebar_update#A_note_on_power_users,_usability,_and_systemic_bias|overprivilege editor needs]], I think BilledMammal's suggestion is the only practical way to take reader input into account. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 04:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:::I echo {{u|Sdkb}}'s concerns. The skin should only be implemented if there is an affirmative consensus to switch to the new skin, especially since the new skin (as it currently stands) ''will'' make breaking changes to Wikipedia editor tools and Wikipedia article layouts. — [[User:Mhawk10|Ⓜ️hawk10]] ([[User talk:Mhawk10|talk]]) 23:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:To incorporate their thoughts I would suggest running the surveys prior to the RfC, and allowing editors to assess the results of the survey when making their decision. In the end, this needs to be based on the consensus of the community, as assessed by the community. For this assessment I would suggest one thing; [[WP:RFCL|asking for a panel close]], such as was done for [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals|the 2021 review of RfA]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 07:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
::I think it's premature to decide in advance that multiple closers are needed. Most discussions can be evaluated adequately by a single closer. The 2021 RfA review was by design open-ended in the number of proposals that could be made, and thus unconstrained in the variety of rationales, which were primarily opinion-based, since often there's no way to collect data without actually trying a change to the process. It remains to be seen if an RfC on a new skin will have these or other characteristics such that more than one closer might be desirable. Ideally, if the development process goes as planned, there won't be an RfC unless there is already widespread support for the changes in question, much like the default deployment of the reply tool feature. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 07:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
:::My suggestion was mainly to reduce the chance of the close being appealed at AN; I don't want us to have a situation where the discussion is closed with a consensus to implement the change, only to have the AN overturn the close. Normally such a situation would not be problematic but in this case I believe it would be due to the scale, prominence, and technical nature of the change. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
::I think I agree with BilledMammal that the best way is to present the results of the surveys ''at'' the RfC. [[User:OVasileva (WMF)|Olga]], you really don't want to end up in the scenario where the enwiki community reaches a consensus ''against'' the change while readers say they like the change{{snd}}I think the community will feel betrayed if you don't respect its decision. If you don't think you can commit to abiding by the outcome of an RfC, you shouldn't hold an RfC; I would be quite upset but less than if you ran an RfC and then overruled its outcome. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 17:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)