Florence Devouard wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Wikipedia has needed a constitution for a long time now. Top-down or bottom-up, that's the only way to stop "this" from happening again. The board seems to have rejected the top-down approach, as has the arb com. But then, the community seems to have rejected the bottom-up one.
I like very much this summary :-)
Yes, and it's the "seems to have" that's the problem. Saying in definite terms that it has rejected the bottom-up approach would be too decisive. ;-)
I'm not sure about the idea of a constitution. The danger with constitution writing is to end up with something like the EU proposal that was rejected by the voters.
Ec