This is the elaborated discussion on the moot procedure and policy CT review, which can be found here. Users reading this page should only really be doing so if they found the CT's summary lacking in information and require further clarification, or would like to see the evidence that supports for specific changes. Any comments and discussion regarding these proposed changes should be direct to the linked CT. (And yes, I'm aware I have a problem with writing too much- I'M SORRY D:)
Why review the moot procedure? This week's moot highlighted some issues with the procedure as it stands, and I will try my best to explain why these issues occurred and what role the procedures play. When the moot first began, it was a formal gathering, with presenters having to have sign up beforehand and a moot leader present to ensure the smooth running of the moot. As interest in the moot died down, activity and people present in the moot did too, resulting in a natural decline to an informal meeting between seasoned editors to discuss whatever came to mind. This system worked well then because there were only a few people attending the moot then, and didn't really have great issues to bring up and discuss. Since the time change, the moot attendance levels are now back to what it was in the beginning, rendering these informal procedures inappropriate now. My suggestion is to bring back the formal procedures, and to hopefully build on them based on all the experiences users who have attended the moot so far can bring in.
In terms of Moot Procedure
- A moot leader is highly important to maintain order within the moot as well as to help guide the moot through all its stages and motions as well as keep the moot on topic . The moot leader of course, does not have to be a sysop as many have already said. The moot leader however, needs to be someone who is not presenting anything during the moot, as well as having some experience in how the moot is usually run so that things are not skipped or overlooked . It's also important that the moot leader have background knowledge on what has or hasn't occurred in past moots- this is so that if certain ideas that are brought up clash with what has been previously agreed on without the presenter being aware a similar topic was already previously discussed, this can be brought up and included within the discussion as opposed to being forgotten or even overridden by mistake .
- The floor needs to be respected. What does this mean? When a presenter is presenting, only they should be typing out/talking in chat until they declare their topic open for discussion. This was a big issue in the latest moot, with several users noting their annoyance at not being able to completely explain their ideas. 
- If presenters would like to present a subject that involves aesthetic changes to the wiki in some way, they need to have an example prepared on their sandbox page to give during the moot. This has been something that came up very often in past moots, with ideas being postponed because people wanted to see an example first.  If the user can't make a mock up themselves, they are welcome to bring the idea in for discussion so that others can do a mock-up which can be re-presented for voting in the next moot. This goes for users who have large ideas as well- details should be finalised before presenting it in the moot to get it through voting. If however, the point is to bring a general idea to get it fleshed out in the moot, a discussion can held to do so but should then be taken away, finalised, and then re-presented in the next moot when everyone knows exactly what they are voting on (see last point in this paragraph for more details on this issue).
- Tackling the "rushed moot syndrome". Several users highlighted to me, as well as noting myself, that many ideas got pushed through "half assed"  without too much clarification and many users left confused  yet still voting to support the idea because they're in favour of moving the moot along rather than clearly looking at what they were voting for because they felt pressured . This sort of comes back to the moot leader point, as the moot leader needs to be level-headed in situations were users are calling for a fast vote while discussion is still occurring . While the moot dragging on over time is indeed an issue, it is better to have a longer moot than have half-formed ideas voted on by users who aren't entirely sure what's going on.
- The moot leader needs to clearly state what the vote is for, keep people on this topic, and when the discussion has reached a natural end, then call for a vote with a clear restatement of what people are voting for. There have been several instances, in this most recent moot and passed, where someone calls for a vote to get it over and done with whilst users either still have concerns , are still trying to discuss the idea , or aren't even sure what they are voting on .
- Ideas voted through the moot need to be final. What does this mean? That the idea has been fleshed out and everyone is certain on what is going to happen. If users have to say during voting "Oh we'll the discuss the details later", then the vote cannot go through.  Why? Because then users are essentially voting for something that's going to be decided upon later with free reign. This is different for example, to an idea that is finalised and then finding problems later after it was implemented that would not have been realised had the idea not been implemented. This point also ties in with the above mentioned "rushed moot syndrome". If an idea cannot be finalised, the presenter needs to go away, work on the idea more and re-present in the next moot- something up until the most recent moot, we have been doing very well. 
Call it what you will, but this idea has been floating around for a long while now. As more people are now joining the moot, boundaries need to be defined with regards to what the moot can or cannot do, what the moot for and isn't for, and some general guidelines that users should be respecting while in the moot. Some ideas, but not limited to, are as follows:
- Setting out the role of the moot leader and presenter as described in the procedure section, in a formalised manner with clear instructions so due respect is given.
- Placing restrictions on how many topics a given user may present in order to maintain short moot times.
- Defining whether or not the moot is a place to vote for CT creation (as opposed to the CT just being created). 
- That the decisions made in previous moots be respected in the current moot instead of arbitrarily attempting to overthrow them in favour of a different idea.  This doesn't exclude the possibility however, that certain decisions made may have had issues discovered later on and may be reviewed in a respectful manner in the current moot.
- Defining the boundaries on the kinds of things the moot can make decisions on. Different users on different occasions have noted that they felt the moot occasionally overstepped its boundaries, and in fact was one of the major reasons for a new time being created as users felt like they were truly missing out something important by not attending. 
- "Anyone who purposely creates tension may be kicked." This needs to be extended towards making personal comments that can be construed as offensive as well as be more seriously enforced. While it's common sense not to insult others, naming names when it comes to issues has its problems as well, and in order to maintain mutual respect within the moot, subjects like this should be handled more carefully by users involved if naming names is required (at all).  Should an issue like this arise, either sysop or moot leader need to be able to step in and give a warning to both deter this behaviour and demonstrate that they are there to support the community and not take sides, and to help bring the topic away from any issues rather than just let the comments pass. 
- "Respect for others is extremely important while trying to get their point across. They may argue for or against a point, or maintain neutrality and let others decide." This needs to be better enforced as well. I watched as more than one user was systematically ignored or shut down during this most recent moot because they presented an opposing opinion . If the majority agree, why should the presenter acknowledge the opinion of an opposer? Because it's possible that they have spotted something or thought of something that no one else has. All persons are unique, this is what makes group work so powerful, that there will always be at least one person who can see something that others have missed. Not to mention, if users would like to be respected, they are required to respect others just as much.
|Click to view all quoted references|
22:11:27: Bluesonic1: Ok instead of rushing this half assed, let's decide on the phrase now?
22:18:39: Bronkiin: Let's just finish this.
21:11:22: Bronkiin: OK, I think the Featured Image and/or Quote should feature on the mainpage.
Link to previous moot where a voting was held for something already discussed in a previous moot (see Admin template point).
22:04:35: SuperSajuuk: but guys seriously
Link to previous moot, see point regarding "old quote of the week".
20:56:53: Flightmare: It should have been deleted years ago
21:20:01: Cheatcodechamp: I agree with blue, rushed decisions are no better then bad ones.
20:46:58: Bluesonic1: Are we then voting this to go through, or simply that it will be a prelim to a bigger discussion later?
21:31:11: Kora Stormblade: what are we voting on?
21:59:31: Atvelonis: I'm getting lost
20:48:08: Bluesonic1: @Admiral: They said the vote was for this to go through, not rediscuss later
21:34:52: ~*LilithRayn*~: Can we vote on a few different options on how often to update it?
21:37:29: Atvelonis: It's still 6-2-3
0:40:45: Atvelonis: We still need to figure out something about chat
20:45:36: SuperSajuuk: maybe a ct for this one?
20:47:47: AdmiralRegis: Thats why we will re0discuss next time.
20:48:50: AdmiralRegis: @Bluesonic1 Pfft... Well if it doesn't work we have no choice to talk about it more
21:17:27: SuperSajuuk: i could try to make a sandbox mainpage to discuss at next moot if needed
21:20:02: SuperSajuuk: Comment: I'll try to sandbox a main page which we can discuss at next moot, might help with the FQ/FI stuff.
21:32:11: Bluesonic1: We're rushing half baked ideas here that most are lost on
Link to moot where the idea of retiring an inactive editor was discussed but no clear decision could be made, so was postponed for further discussion later and no action taken.
22:04:17: Atvelonis: in fact sajuuk if you want to start a CT, just start it
21:46:53: Bluesonic1: Sajuuk, this was already voted on in a past CT
Link to comment discussing concerns over moot boundaries.
Link to comment discussing concerns over moot boundaries with regards to additional concerns with the (now previous) moot time.
20:36:06: SuperSajuuk: from the recent nomination for Kora Stormblade, it feels as if the wiki is grasping to find more members who are mainspace editors
22:06:13: Atvelonis: we aren't finding it hard to nominate people? I'm planning on nominating azura later
Link to moot log where Kora Stormblade asked that the topic be changed considering the uncomfortable nature of the subject, but both this and any comments from other users regarding the user and subject were ignored/never addressed (no moot leader was present to be able to address this either).
21:22:09: Bluesonic1: In several of the topics today, we've rushed through voting support on things we may or may "discuss later"
21:25:39: SuperSajuuk: here's a better question
21:33:09: Flightmare: Once a month is not enough :)
21:34:52: ~*LilithRayn*~: Can we vote on a few different options on how often to update it?
21:35:50: Cheatcodechamp: 2400 votes compared to how many views? The poll is how old and that is all we have? It will get seen less as we add more to our front.
21:51:39: Cheatcodechamp: I say to save time and keep peace, we handle that on that page we just said we should handle votes on
22:00:03: Bluesonic1: Sajuuk has other stuff to discuss and I have shit to do, can we get on with the actual moot as we voted on?