On 3/3/06, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
But how will you feel about it if that's the
result anyway?
Process should be followed until it is clear that it does not work.
And then it should be changed, modified, have exceptions added to it,
etc. in order to fix whatever wasn't working. I don't think that's a
very radical idea.
One clarification: I am fine with enshrining the idea that process as
a rule is a better way of managing behavior on a large scale. I am not
fine with enshrining any particular processes (i.e., our current fair
use policy, our current speedy deletion policy), but rather the idea
of processes in general. In this sense, the only individual process
which needs to be guaranteed is the possibility of changing other
processes if needed.
In the end, I am more worried about the collateral damage which
results from making big changes against policy without open discussion
-- leading to accusations, suspicion, curt language, frustrated users,
angry posts, etc. -- than I am about the idea that asking questions
about policy violations will cause more people to look to policy
before acting unilaterally.
If we are not free to inquire in good faith about violations of
policies then we might as well not even have them. And I don't think
that's an approach which has shown itself to work too well,
personally, either on the Wiki or elsewhere.
FF