Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/27/07 7:20 PM, Ray Saintonge at
saintonge(a)telus.net wrote:
Rather than needing a strong leader I would prefer
to say that we need
strong leadership. Embodying leadership in the person of one leader can
be very distracting. It's what leaves someone like Jimbo as the revered
god-king who must have the answers to every proplem we can imagine.
It's demanding a physical impossibility. Good leadership <snip> guides the
groups toward a real
consensus that does not leave opposite sides of an issue at each other's
throat.
Ray,
Following your thoughts here, "good leadership" seems a bit nebulous to me.
In the context of this medium, how do we achieve it in a practical sense?
Good leadership will likely require a group effort. Those who feel the
need for reform need to look at where they have common ground, and build
from there. Some things that need to be reatified may seem obvious, but
such ratifications can strenghthen policy.
We have core principles, but have we ratified them? They are embodied
in five pillars, but how much of that page is really the five pillars,
and how much of it is elaboration that may or may not do justice to the
principles? We know that the five pillars themselves are unchangeable,
but what degree of support must the elaboration need?
The leadership group can be made up of people who have an ability to be
flexible in their thinking. It can review a policy and propose a
rewritten version with a cleaned up text, which must then be ratified or
rejected by Wikipedians. I don't think that "electing" such a group
would be helpful; the whole process of elections tends to bring out
those who want to see their favourites in the group, rather than those
who are more concerned with finding consensus.
Ec.