On 3/21/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote: 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.
My understanding of policy is that it should be largely descriptive, not prescriptive, so in other words it formalizes and details what good editors tend to do anyway. As someone said in another thread (I think it was David G), there should be no surprises.
When we were developing BLP, there was no committee, no poll, no seeking of specific authorization from Jimbo. It was clearly a good proposal, clearly needed in some form, and everyone who posted about it wanted it in broad terms. It was then just a question of filling in the details and making sure it was consistent with the other policies.
We had *exactly* that situation with the merge of V and NOR, and that wasn't even a policy change, just summarizing and a new title. And yet it has led to a claim that somehow consensus wasn't achieved in the right way.
This leaves us not knowing how policy is supposed to be developed.
Sarah