On Jan 11, 2008 5:08 PM, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
*If* we are to govern ourselves, then *we* need to
define what is and is
not sufficient mandate for policy changes in our community.
Absolutely agreed.
Most sane
people would agree that a 66% support rate on a dubious and confused
eight day poll performed when half the community was on holiday is
simply not our method of deciding stuff like this.
Probably, but would most sane people agree that the poll used was
dubious and confused? And what does it matter what "most sane people"
would agree on?
But the developer took it on himself to decide what
was an was not
consensus in our community - and accepted the advice of the rather
determined promoter of the policy.
Developers have no other choice but to decide what to implement and
what not to implement. I quote the great philosopher Neil Peart when
I say "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice".
It is not possible for this community
to govern itself while outsiders make such decisions and yet all outside
bodies refuse to hear any appeal against them.
Now, as I say, this fikning policy (admin right to grant) is now a done
deal. But what we need now is to make sure this can never happen again.
Wikipedia has needed a constitution for a long time now. Top-down or
bottom-up, that's the only way to stop "this" from happening again.
The board seems to have rejected the top-down approach, as has the arb
com. But then, the community seems to have rejected the bottom-up
one.