steve v wrote:
But now there seems to be a leadership gap on en.wikipedia -- where pencil rules written by ad-hoc concensus are generally unreviewable even by the Arbcom. In that context, yes, the notion of 'making people do stuff' seems rather rude and lacks any meaning. Even when there is community or committee consensus, if its consensus without responsiveness or rationality, then (not unlike our recent 'page views' rank on Alexa) a case of 'one step forward two steps back.'
Rules, to be meaningful, need very broad support. The more so when the structures are highly complex. "Rules" here tend to be developed by small groups who happen to be interested in the subject matter at the time. They become valid because people follow the, not the reverse. It would be ideal to have a coherent and organized body of rules governing everything we do, but that is unattainable. If I go away from editing a topic for two years, and then come back I fully expect to become involved in discussions that may have taken place in the interim. I'm not going to argue everything; I will find some changes to be very positive even if I opposed them two years ago, but there are others where I will certainly re-open debate. It's important to be able to do that, because there are very few policies that should be unchangeable, or that should be carved into mandatory rock.
Leadership is more than saying, "this is the way it must be." Sometimes that is the only way to go, but a leader who does this needs to accept the consequences of such actions, and use that technique with great reservation. It requires patiently listening and giving weight to reasonable arguments without being intimidated by rule drones.
Ec