Perhaps this is where we need to go for definitions:
and where we need to ensure our documentation exists.
I would suggest focusing on editing this one document, and this one:
and making these documents part of the basis for our quality initiative.
I would also suggest that we tighten up this document:
We have been talking around ideas, which is good, but it would also be good to start identifying the tools we need to leverage and create better quality. If we start a list of documents that will become the core of our effort, we can start to identify how and where we are going to implement our quality initiatives. Then later, we can hammer out exact definitions of primary, secondary and the like.
Anyone else have "pet" documents that should be on this list?
I'd certainly recommend the German version of that guideline. The French version is very limited compared to the English and German versions. If you don't understand German I can post a Google-translation somewhere.
Reliable Sources is my pet one, but honestly I think they are fine. Tweaking them will not result in anything major, and I feel that those policies have been developing well anyway. I suggest we agree that they are important and need to be further improved, but also that the community has been doing fine job on those and we should focus on other issues (like diminishing pool of contributors and community health issues, with their implications for quality). --Piotrus 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)