On 08/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:16:21 -0500, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It's kind of vague, really. Historically, the Arbitration Committee took over the roles Jimmy previously exercised. Informally, he currently heads it (from afar, mostly), and has authority to veto its decisions, appoint/remove members, etc. Even more informally, he does so in accordance with community approval (elections, the policy ratification vote, etc.). At one point Jimmy was also formally in charge, but now in hierarchical terms the Foundation's Board of Directors would be, with Jimmy retaining informal/customary authority over some English-Wikipedia-specific processes. Now that authority over the community is mostly effective because the community tacticly approves of it, so teasing out which has priority is tricky.
Unless you are English, where the concept of a constitutional monarchy is something we've always lived with :o) Yesterday I was riding along the Queen's highway. Literally - The Mall.
Ways to get amusing reactions out of American tourists blocking the road and not moving out of the way: start snarling about Obstructing the Queen's Highway in the most strident tone you can muster.
Authority here derives from the monarch, but is vested in others, and any attempt to exercise power against the will of the people would cause problems. It took us a couple of hundred years to get the balance right, and it's still changing. But over that entire period, the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated. Is that so bad?
I have in the past mused over the idea that the evolution of power in Wikipedia bears a shocking resemblance to the evolution of power in a British-style constitutional monarchy; a clear trend of slowly devolving power and authority to others; those others selected in a growingly democratic manner; and a heavy reliance on running matters by The Way Things Are Done Around Here By Sensible Decent Chaps.
I'm not sure what period I'm willing to stretch the analogy as far as, though ;-)