I approve of the general idea. I think reviewing the votes for approvals will be important to avoid abuse, and IP address might not be sufficient. But sock-puppet control is hard; hopefully the nicheness of our site will make this less of a concern.
On 1, I'd suggest to keep more than just the last revision, but more-aggressive deletion (compared to the general revision deletion policy, whatever that turns out to be) would be fine. Furthermore, I think removing all the revisions upon approval would be reasonable.
Part of me would like a more nuanced notion of "member" and "contributor" for voting, but I don't have good ideas for it. I think about the Stack Exchange system of "reputation", but I don't think anything we track currently would efficiently represent familiarity with the site and/or chess variant expertise. And as long as editors continue to review approvals, we can handle things. (Should there be a sort of negative vote that members can contribute? "This rule is unclear, please revise before publishing"?) If we move forward with this, we might want to consider raising the publication bar if we see a lot of "low-confidence" votes, as an alternative to limiting voting ability.
I approve of the general idea. I think reviewing the votes for approvals will be important to avoid abuse, and IP address might not be sufficient. But sock-puppet control is hard; hopefully the nicheness of our site will make this less of a concern.
On 1, I'd suggest to keep more than just the last revision, but more-aggressive deletion (compared to the general revision deletion policy, whatever that turns out to be) would be fine. Furthermore, I think removing all the revisions upon approval would be reasonable.
Part of me would like a more nuanced notion of "member" and "contributor" for voting, but I don't have good ideas for it. I think about the Stack Exchange system of "reputation", but I don't think anything we track currently would efficiently represent familiarity with the site and/or chess variant expertise. And as long as editors continue to review approvals, we can handle things. (Should there be a sort of negative vote that members can contribute? "This rule is unclear, please revise before publishing"?) If we move forward with this, we might want to consider raising the publication bar if we see a lot of "low-confidence" votes, as an alternative to limiting voting ability.