>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales@wikia.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 01:01 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT
>
>jf_wikipedia wrote:
>> (a) What was done that we should not have done;
>
>The change was made before a sufficient process had taken place to make
>the change, with the result that many good editors were unaware that
>such a fundamental change was about to take place. Many have reported
>being baffled and unhappy with the change.
>
>> (b) What was not done that we should have done;
>
>A process which has worked well in the past is a process of discussion
>to arrive at a specific proposal, followed by a broad public poll (or
>"vote"), followed by a certification of the result.
>
>This achieves something quite useful: broad notification, a serious
>assessment of the strength or weakness of support for some proposal, and
>a defined endpoint so that people know that policy has been changed.
>All of these things serve to promote harmony by making policy changes
>democratic rather than power struggles.
>
>> (c) How do we gauge consensus as it relates to policy changes.
>
>We do not have a simple clear definition of this.
>
>> (d) Do we need to involve you in the final determination so this does
>> not happen again?
>
>I think this would be a good thing, yes. I do not want to have a veto
>over policy changes (other than perhaps WP:NPOV - if a vote of 90% of
>all editors was to turn Wikipedia into Conservapedia, I would not accept
>it at all of course :) ). But I think it is important that for really
>major shifts of policy, we have a clear and defined endpoint.
>
>--Jimbo
This suggestion is an elaboration of a principle that was developed in an arbitration case. Policy doings need to be closed, just like a Request for Deletion. Someone, or a small group, needs to evaluate the depth and breath of the policy discussion and if there is consensus, proclaim the policy as adopted. And, I might add, consider whether a fundamental policy such as NPOV, is diminished or violated by the new policy.
Fred