I think we should do it. Here's my suggestion:
- Ask SE to turn it on.
- See how it is.
- In three months, we should start another meta discussion and decide if it's been a success or a failure. If we don't like it, we can ask SE to change it back at that point.
In chat, Flaw brought up one possible problem:
We want a faster close>edit>reopen cycle and a lower vote threshold seems to help this. But we also want a robust close>stay-closed process and that needs a higher vote threshold.
I'm not convinced this really needs a higher vote threshold, though. I think that most of the time a post reaches three close or reopen votes, it ends up being closed or reopened. It just takes longer in the current system. Changing to three votes would streamline the process and help the site run a bit smoother.
It's possible that under the new system posts will end up getting closed or reopened when they shouldn't really, but we can use the existing tools we have to solve those problems as they come up, if they come up. My feeling is that once we’ve tried it out, though, we’ll likely want to keep it that way. And trying it is the best way to test whether those problems are actual or purely theoretical.
In the worst case, if we feel it's a major problem, we can revisit it before the three months are up. The reasons I want to set a three month schedule are these:
- To give us enough time to see if any problems do come up.
- To make sure we don't forget to talk about it on meta eventually and decide whether it's been successful or not.
I'd really like to hear more feedback from our community before we decide to ask SE to try it out, though. I hope everyone will leave comments, answers, or votes as Darius asked in his post, so we can get more of a community consensus before moving forward.