In order for a request to move from proposal to accepted, there needs to be some sort of objective statistic-based criteria. I propose the following:
- The question post has minimum +10 score (representing roughly 10% of meta users approving). This minimum score would be open to be changed as needed (e.g. higher percentage/higher or lower score).
- The question post has at least twice as many upvotes as downvotes (to avoid a situation where you have x users agreeing and x - 10 users disagreeing). This ensures that the consensus is actually a consensus. This consensus method has been used over on code golf for things like loophole definitions.
- If there is an opposing answer, and it has a higher score than the question post then the burnination request won't be approved.
If criteria #3 is met, the request won't be status-declined, but it won't be status-approved either. Basically, it's a block rather than a definitive no.
Additionally, I suggest the following time criteria:
- The proposal can't be accepted in the first 7 days to allow for people to actually view the proposal. This doesn't mean guaranteed acceptance after 7 days - it's just a waiting period to make sure no one is jumping to any conclusions.
- The proposal has 6 months to be accepted. After that point, it will be declined (as to not leave it open forever)
All of these metrics are subject to change and can have completely different values. They serve purely as a way to guide community members and moderators on which stage a proposal is up to. Further, this proposal list is not binding either - if the community wants a different system, then that's completely fine. Further, they can be overriden as needed, subject to the context of the burn request.