My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient, changing leadership are those who want to do something for the project, or believe the project should have some feature or device. Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be lazy.
I tend to agree, but again its besides the point. The association of sysops with janitors has left sysops untrusted with actual decision power, to resolve certain disputes. They wind up put in a place where their hands are tied by the influx. Council members could be given authority to:
- settle particularly clear POV and disputes flatly, including article deletion and material inclusion disputes.
- make a judgement on particular a POV issue and apply it.
- make direct article edits or else give specific article instructions which to follow.
- with other members, they can build a record of how particular disputes are dealt with.
Of course this body should be reasonalby large, perhaps 30 members, have all some serious skillz, and of course a dedication to and experience with NPOV. The body needs to be large enough to have some influence, have standards and review for membership, and yet it should be small enough to require consensus among the council, and thus avoid the direct that sysops get into.
They should use their authority sparingly, in particular to override any collusion of newbie "consensus" which has been shown to be disruptive element as WP has grown larger.
So an edit by a councilor* is supposed to get peoples attention, as it corrects something which needs correcting. When compared to the Arbcom, whos domain is largely ex-post fact punitivity, this body should deal with the material application of NPOV, and defer civility issues to the Arbcom.
-SV
- as opposed to a "counselor"
I have long felt that something like this would be the only way to get decent versions of a number of very contentious articles. But, when you compare the "sort of government" that would imply compared to the present system which is some sort of mildly democratic anarchy with very occasional intervention by a monarch, I can't see the system emerging. I think it would alienate far to large a segment of the community and probably do more damage than good achieved.
Dalf