Seth, I second this approach (though admittedly as "just an observer").
David, sorry to say "just do it" after you specifically asked us
not to ;-) but that really is the way Wikis work. Our community
appears to be fairly respectful (even when we disagree), and I second
the earlier comment [was it Di's?] about sudden sweeping page changes
being unlikely in the face of not-many-contributor-itis
Still, if you really want collaboration/comments/agreement before
moving forward, a deadline is a good way to go. You can always change
the deadline if the discussion gets involved and you don't feel things
are settled.
-Ankhst
>
> >Furthermore, I have already run into "get everyone's agreement"
> >requests, when I have merely *proposed* something, not even made the
> >change permanent. And so I leave the proposal as a proposal, maybe
> >mention it here... and wait a month for anyone to counter or ratify it.
> >
> >The problem I (for one) am facing is that I am waiting for feedback
> >that, apparently, will never happen: people are not ratifying any
> >proposals nor are they offering alternative ideas (I see now why: almost
> >no one goes there and checks Recent Changes for new discussions). It's
> >just me and the crickets, as I spin out paragraph after paragraph on
> >planning Talk pages....
> >
>
> Set a deadline ("Voice your opinion by date X.") and assume silence =
> agreement... or at least as "abstains from expressing an opinion". This is
> work by a committee where most of the members aren't checking in on a
> regular basis. So those people who aren't looking have to have the ability
> to quietly abstain. If they object later, they can put up a proposal
> themselves and get feedback from the active members.
>