On 1/14/08, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The reason that constitution was rejected - or a major reason among many - is that it was hundreds of pages long and endlessly convoluted, to the point where it would take centuries of litigation to really determine what anything meant. The obvious conclusion for others interested in writing 'constitutions' or governing documents is that it should be broadly construed and short. This, it turns out, isn't all that hard to do.
Regarding this particular incident, the time for re-evaluating the implementation of rollback and the process for future similar changes is now. I would like to see someone, anyone, take some leadership here. There is a reason that societies are hierarchical - without leadership, nothing gets done.
Well, whatever you do, never look for leadership from these quarters.
I will snipe from the sidelines, but only when somebody tries mightily to harm the overall vision of our "thing". (and no, I can't and don't want to define it any further than that, unless you bring in very serious instruments to bear on my physical body (and I have some minor experience in resisting even that))
I personally consider leadership a necessary evil, which has to be protected, but never given untrammeled liberty to exercise itself.
A case in point is Jimbos (I am being charitable here) flailing pointlessly in trying to define how the arbcom, the foundation and the community are supposed to structure their relations, ambits of influence etc. very recently in connection to the rollback teacup tempest.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]