In general, such changes are not made unilaterally by these editors, but are implemented only after consensus has been reached on the StyleMailingList to make the change.
Anyone who feels that a change to the AR types is needed should:
- propose the change on the UsersMailingList
- If you get some positive feedback,
- For an existing type add the proposal to the discussion section of the existing relationship type page.
- For a new type write a full proposal on a page named like this SomethingRelationshipType.
- Propose the change to the StyleMailingList as an RFC (request for comments) -- be sure to include "RFC" in the subject line.
- After incorporating suggestions, if there appears to be consensus, send the final proposal to the StyleMailingList as an RFV (request for veto) -- again be sure to include "RFV" in the subject line.
- If no vetos are received in two weeks, you have consensus, and should arrange for one of the RelationshipEditor
s (listed below) to implement the change.
- AlexanderDupuy (Editor:dupuy)
- DaveEvans (Editor:djce)
- DonRedman (Editor:donredman)
- LukasLalinsky (Editor:lukz)
- mo (Editor:mo)
- RobertKaye (Editor:rob)
- WolfSong (Editor:wolfsong)
- FrederikSOlesen (Editor:Freso)
- Yes you are right, RelationshipTypeEditor would be more correct. If you want to fix this, go ahead. I for myself think that RelationshipEditor is ok enough. --DonRedman
"Editor" would tend to imply that the RelationshipEditor
s are the proposers of change, in the way we use the term "Editor" elsewhere. Based on the above description, where the general population proposes changes/additions, and the RelationshipEditor
s then eventually become the ones to implement such changes, perhaps "RelationshipEditImplementor" would be more correct? -- BrianSchweitzer 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, as these are a subset (or subclass) of Editors, and by analogy with AutoEditor
s (and the more recent TransclusionEditor
s), I now feel the term is fine as it is. @alex