Forum:Revising Chat Moderator and IRC Operator requests

It's been nearly a month since the last discussion about revising the Chat Moderator selection process was ended. For that period, requests for Chat moderator have remained closed, and the issues that led to its closure have not been resolved. The purpose of this thread is to finally lay those questions to rest.

Let's start with where most people agree, and go from there. Based on prior discussions, it is generally agreed that the RfCM process should be more open to user input on an applicant/nominee, and should be structured less like a formal vote.

In the previous thread, Lost Labyrinth suggested implementing a form of the system we use to select admins and bureaucrats, wherein there is an open discussion period, followed by a vote if a consensus isn't reached. Various methods could be used to make the process less formalized, including waiving the "one request at a time" requirement, or the process of holding requests on separate pages. Beds also suggested adding a "cooldown" period between successful requests, though the nature of this suggestion would be tied to whether or not multiple requests could be heard simultaneously.

For sake of neutrality in the intro, I'll give my personal opinion in the discussion section below. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 04:33, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I see an implementation of the RfA-style discussion process as being probably our best bet at the present time, with a couple suggested modifications. Where presently RfAs are required to sit in discussion for at least 5 days (and possibly up to 10), I would like to suggest that we loosen this requirement for RfCMs, especially if a consensus is clearly forming after several users have weighed in. I would also support eliminating the one-at-a-time rule, and support having all the requests managed on a single page rather than on separate pages.

On a final note, I think it might be worth re-considering the chat moderator ruleset we have in place, especially in regards to the specific membership and activity requirements. I think the rules as they're currently written may be too restrictive and could be interpreted more strictly than perhaps they should be. This is just a personal concern of mine, and does not affect my support for a general overhaul of the request process itself. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 04:33, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much this. As far as activity requirements go...determining activity on something like Chat is often tricky as we don't actually have any way of knowing that somebody has joined Chat unless we just happen to be in the right place at the right time. I don't think it needs to be as strict as the 4 month requirement to apply to be a chatmod but seeing as we have a number of users on Chat who rarely, if at all, edit the wiki itself. Something like "Regularly active on Chat" might be something we could put down but even then it's kind of broad, I don't know. 11:17, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, so let's get this discussion back on board. After some thought, I guess the current chatmod requirements are a little bit restrictive (coming from the person who came up with the idea of new requirements). As for the way RfCM's are going to be dealt with, I agree with the RfA style discussion based style, but maybe we should go with a shorter discussion period i.e I was thinking about 3-5 days, or maybe just 3 days altogether. As for the cooldown period, I still think we should do this for my reasons stated in the previous thread. Beds (parlare - da leggere ) 11:37, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * I might not talking a bit of sense about this but since admins/sysops can also grant and revoke chat mod rights to other users, should they be also involved in reviewing (granting/denying) the requests? --Frostwalker Talk to me! 15:11, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Frostwalker raises a very interesting point and thinking about it, what reason is there not to allow sysops to give out/revoke that right when the need arises? As long as the rule of consensus in these requests is followed then I can't see any problems. Obviously this is up for debate but I'm just speaking my mind here. 19:21, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, I see no reason to limit it to Bureaucrats only. On another subject, would we be rolling out these (eventual) changes to IRC ops requests as well? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 20:30, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * It would make sense imo to extend whatever changes we make here to IRC op requests for the sake of consistency. One major difference however is that only bureaucrats can hand out user flags on IRC. I don't know what everybody's stance is on extending that ability to administrators but that's probably worthy of a separate discussion in itself. 20:58, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Focus
Ok, this discussion has been silent for a week. It seems that everyone so far has agreed that RfCMs and RfIRCOPs should be treated like RfAs and RfBs; there remain to be some differences on the specifics, so we should discuss those. One - what should the length of the discussion be? Should it be a minimum of five days, as with RfA/RfB, a minimum of 3-5 as Beds suggested, or something else? Should there be a cooldown period after the conclusion of a successful request and, if so, how long should it last? Should we allow sysops to hand out these flags too, and would we also extend that ability to administrators on the IRC Channel? Let's talk specifics, and hopefully also get some more of the regular IRC and Chat users involved in this discussion. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:30, October 29, 2013 (UTC)