I think a review of the recent premature (i.m.o.) Rubus split referenced above will go a long way toward answering that question.
In the absence of staff confirmation, and in light of recent damage done, I think the prudent and common sense interpretation would be that, by adding the 5 vote requirement, Staff intended the process for vascular plants to become more conservative and stringent, not equally or less so. If they had intended 5 curator votes to replace the more general community input process referenced in the Curator Guide, they would have said so. They were clearly trying to add an extra hurdle, not make it easier, to make taxon changes in vascular plants.
So my 2 cents toward answering this question is:
-
Patience. Do not begin the community input process by drafting and submitting taxon changes for curator approval. That should be the last step, not the first. (But see my disclaimer at bottom.) It’s already hard enough for the community to find discussions on taxon flags. Discussions on draft taxon changes are even more deeply buried.
-
Flag the taxon in question for Curation.
-
Provide/link to as much background information as possible regarding the proposed change.
-
Tag top observers and identifiers of the taxon (regardless of whether they are also curators) and request their input.
-
Patience. Wait. At least a week, to give community members a chance to respond.
-
Assess consensus. In the absence of clear unanimity, how grave are the issues raised in dissent? In a consensus process, when in doubt, the status quo should be maintained until further clarity can be found. Tag additional people when possible, especially if there has been no input at all.
-
Assess impact. If there has been no input, or there has been at least one strong dissenting voice, how serious and extensive are the potential impacts to the community of going forward anyway? How reversible (or not) are they? Again, when in doubt, consider maintaining the status quo. Think of yourself as the arbiter, not the advocate, for the proposed change.
-
If going forward, first draft and complete any atlases needed if a split is involved. If help is needed completing the atlases, ask for it on the Taxon Flag, not on the Taxon Change after it has already been drafted.
-
Finally, draft the needed taxon change(s), providing clear reference to the Taxon Flag(s) where the discussion occurred, and submit them for Curator votes.
-
Note that changes now automatically display a list of “Curators with most IDs of the input taxon.” In the discussion section of the taxon change, @ tag these curators, both as potential voters, and for any further input if they weren’t included in the Flag discussion. Point them to the Flag and note any significant issues remaining there. Confirm that atlases (if applicable) are believed to be complete.
-
Curators should only vote to approve the taxon change if they agree that the community input process (including time allowed) was sufficient to the purpose, that the change is justifiable based on the total input provided, and that the changes are drafted correctly and completely and will be committed in appropriate sequence (when that matters).
All this said, I also agree that there are some “no-brainer” changes (orphaned autonyms or other taxa “left behind” by past changes, spelling corrections that can’t be done directly, etc.) where the above process can and should be much shorter, and can go directly to a draft taxon change without a flag discussion. Curators just have to use their best judgement and, when in doubt, err on the side of more patience and community input, not less.
I also agree that this process could be greatly facilitated if iNaturalist would develop ways to automatically notify users (when they have opted in) of taxon flags and taxon changes likely to be of interest to them. But for now, the system is what it is and we have to work with the tools at hand.