It has been a year since close reasons were revamped across the Stack Exchange network, giving individual sites the ability to define a set of custom reasons explaining why a question is off-topic. At that time, SE Community Coordinator Shog9 "seeded" us with an initial set of custom reasons, and directed site moderators to develop and refine their custom close reasons in consultation with the community. This was never done. Despite an effort to get this conversation started at the time—an effort that, it should be noted, originated from the community and drew little attention from the moderator staff—we are still using the original custom Off Topic reasons Shog9 wrote for us a year ago. As Shog9 himself noted during the recent election campaign, we "could probably do a lot better."
At the same time, in a meta post that currently has 16 net upvotes, Shog9 strongly urged us to define the limits of General Reference, including getting a lot more specific about what reference sources should be considered GR for which questions, and helping people understand how they can find answers for GR questions. There was considerable discussion in answers and comments to that question, but nothing ever came out of it. Shog9 has urged us to return to this question and actually come up with a resolution.
What is the process for proposing a change to site policies and governance and seeing it through to resolution? We are very good at chewing issues to death on meta, and very bad at ever actually doing anything to change anything. I made a specific proposal in January to clarify and narrow how the GR close reason should be used. It sits at +13, with 19 upvotes and 6 downvotes. Despite attracting a reasonable amount of discussion, it has never officially been accepted or rejected, and as far as I can tell, no one from the moderation staff has ever weighed in on it at all. I'm not wedded to this proposal, and if I were to propose it today I'd probably make some changes to it. But to not even have it get rejected leaves me wondering where we go from here. If this is not how we're supposed to have these conversations, please tell us what we should be doing instead.
What do we have to do to satisfy these requirements? Does the process need to originate with the moderation staff? If so, why didn't that ever happen? What can we do to help craft a policy that will work for this site? How is the sentiment of the community determined, and to what extent does that sentiment matter? Who makes the ultimate decision, and how will we find out what the decision is? Just tell us what we're supposed to do to help get the process started, and we'll do it. Doing nothing is no longer an option.