Erik Moeller wrote:
look, I can agree on this: Only hold a vote if there is an actual substantial number of dissenters, and if there isn't, just move on with the project.
Then we don't need a vote in this case then, do we?
New project plans would have to be announced in the proper places so that every dissenter gets an opportunity to object.
We need an announcements list for this sort of thing. Or a Wikimedia list that discusses only Foundation-wide policy, not focussed on the encyclopaedia.
Silently ignoring dissenters, starting projects without giving people a proper opportunity to voice their objections or letting them bog down the whole process even though they are just a small minority is all not desirable.
Yes, this is true. I'm not sure why you mention it. Certainly there was never any risk of this happening in this case. The idea of putting the vote at the /end/ of the policy-making process is what really throws me -- dissent should be voiced by then.
Consensus can not always be reached, and in these cases, we use voting.
Maybe, but that's not even really relevant. So what if there's no consensus that we need a textbook project? Or so what if it doesn't even get a majority? Objection should only be for broad principles, like NPOV, which should be decided by the Wikimedia Foundation in general. (Quite possibly, the Board may decide them despite your and my opinion!)
-- Toby