As priorities go, here are mine, in order:
- Really STEP 0, if markdown would allow for this: Continue with the current consensus model, name, scope, close reasons. Be friendly to new users, remind them of policy and guide them to the proper documentation on this.
No change in our behaviour towards any new model at this step!
Just strict application of current rules!
- Flesh out name and scope issues. Have a moderator declare or proclaim this and the following steps as official, once our targets are reached
- Define three well thought custom close reasons to catch as many situations as possible
- Establish this new documentation (or updated old ones) as the current consensus, the FAQ, ideally also in our help-documents
- Make these changes official, they need to clearly written down somewhere and easy enough to find, at least for us when reminding users in comments
- Now apply these new rules as the new current consensus. Always pointing any newbies to the reasons and rules we documented
We have a share of users coming to this site posting something, maybe horrible in our eyes, but in good faith and sometimes even according to those guidelines available to them. When these users come to meta or start to complain in comments "but your help says…" they are understandably confused and they are fundamentally right to complain and ask for clarification.
As I wrote before, I would miss nutrition as a topic, for example. Health or even medicine without including nutrition seems wrong. But if it is the current consensus and clearly documented as well as easy to find, then OK, out of the window with it.
It would be a mistake to gallop into application of new rules before we thought this through and documented it. While we are all eager to improve things, before this is done properly, every user acting according to his own vision for this site's future is acting as though we are confused and conflicted about this. To be fair, currently we are conflicted about this. As anxious as we are for change, this will hopefully speed up the process without compromising anything vital for what I would call due process.
I propose at least two different meta-meta posts "FAQ new users", pointing to the current consensus building meta posts; "FAQ regular users" pointing likewise o the current consensus on things like "how to review", "how to comment".
Both of these might seem obvious, or not. Fact is that they are way easier to change – that is to update – than all those brick walls we have hit when updating e.g. help-center files. And while some posts already on meta are already the current consensus, they are not always easy to find, and therefor not easy to link to if to be used in comments. As examples on how to implement that I suggest to orient this target on how Skeptics did it: FAQ: What are theoretical answers?