I am not too keen on a policy RFC. Not that I oppose it but I do not believe
we had enough preliminary discussion to come up with a decent proposal. A
policy RFC would get shot down almost instantly.
As for the RFAR comment. Arbcom has proven themselves to be useless in this
dispute. They went out of their way not to resolve the dispute. They are
first class in establishing "findings of fact" but are dead last when it
comes in doing something about those "facts" they found...
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz <wilhelm(a)nixeagle.org>wrote;wrote:
Well that is the best we have for community wide
discussion about
changes in policy. You could also try the village pump... But even
that is only watched by a select few.
By its very nature, the more people you put in a discussion the
noisier and choatic a discussion gets.
Really any discussion that you can have that has a large cross section
of the community is likely to be a strong argument for changes in
policy based on the results of the discussion.
The trick is getting any meaningful agreement on principles or select
parts of a change. If you can't get that then any changes you make to
a policy that affects the whole encyclopedia as dramatically as this
is always going to be contested as not enough people in the consensus.
This issue is playing out now in an existing arbitration case.
(changes were made on a discussion with 14 people... 11 supporting and
3 contesting... If I recall right) The point being large changes can't
be made without bringing the changes up for the whole community to
review. Right now I would say a well done policy RFC is your best
option. Feel free to try something else... But that format seems to
work best for lots of folks commenting.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l