in reply to Re^2: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms. (haste)
in thread Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.
If the consideration is clearly merited of action, then that action will often be taken forthwith. At which point, your frustrated, but only occasional visitor monks, will have no mechanism to see the relative merit of their actions.
Actually, if the action taken was reaping, then the vote tally is recorded and can easily be looked up by logged-in members. If the action isn't reaping, then the consideration could still be left up. If it weren't for people often voting "keep" for the case of "it looks like the requested change is not required", avoiding haste in unconsidering after a change is made would indeed offer the same advantage.
If the action was an edit, then when and who did what is recorded and available. If the action was moving a root node to a different section, then who re-approved the node in the new section is shown. So anybody having concerns / questions can at least ask the person who did the work. That is much less frustrating (and disruptive) than trying to /msg a whole group.
Of course, for a "consideration [...] clearly merited of action" where "action [is] taken forthwith", such changes could even be done by a janitor with no consideration step at all. The vote tally is of significantly less interest in such cases. If one feels strongly against such changes, then one should probably instead be speaking up to influence site policy to discourage the particular type of change that is being done "forthwith".
The disadvantages of leaving a consideration "up" after the requested change has been made are also worse than the disadvantages of leaving an unfulfilled consideration "up". Neither scenario is "black and white" but the relative benefits, in sum, fall on opposite sides of the boundary, and quite clearly so, IMO.
Really? I though[t] I vaguely remembered that there were some specific consequences of consideration. Visibility?
It seems like at least part of your motivation doesn't exist, despite it appealing to you.
So, we have real reasons for avoiding haste in removing considerations that might seem unlikely to be acted upon. The reason for removing such a consideration are mostly when it seems likely that a different consideration is called for. The reason of "BrowserUK incorrectly remembers some consequence of a node being considered" is never given much weight, I believe.
Way to go man. Democracy in action.
Not all polls constitute a democracy, thankfully. Trying to build a democracy out of a poll where only a single person gets to compose the question to be voted upon would be one particularly stupid way to do such. Of course, this is what we have with reaping due to a variety of contributing factors. My observation is that the majority of poll respondents are quite willing to reap any node that they don't understand if somebody else will label it "reap: spam". That looks more like "mob rule" than "democracy".