David Gerard wrote:
On 02/05/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the grey areas and ambiguities. We can't possibly legislate everything; there will be interpretation, and conflicting principles in real world cases. "We just trust good people" scales until not all the good people agree on everything, and then scales with the culturally aggressive people set until there are so many of us that we explode.
How's this:
"Any process that violates NPOV, NOR, V or NPA, AGF, BITE is thrown awa."
Violation not to be decided by popular vote. Hmm.
Note also we need something to give status in the community *other than* an admin bit.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It isn't about individual status, it is about understanding that experienced cabals are sometimes preferable to Athenian democracies - especially when the !voters are not all in any way significant stakeholders.
We keep opposing 'cabal' to 'community' as if one was bad and the other good. The reality though is that the 'community' is an illusion - all you have is the small and not necessarily representative cross-section that turn up for any one debate - a self-selecting cabal in effect. A carefully selected cabal is infinitely superior - and can be for more responsible and representative.
Arbcom is, for instance, one such cabal. And, despite its drawbacks far better than the lynchmob justice that is the alternative. It is elected, basically on one moron one vote, and yet in fact it is a panel of experienced users all with a significant stake in the project.
If an elected cabal is the last arbiter is matters of discipline - then why not in other matters? Why not in policy, or in deletions?
Why not have a committee of the wise replace DRV? Or RfA?
Representative democracy tends to be more stable, responsible and sensible than the law of the 'who turns up'.
Of course we must not create too many elected groups - or participation in the election and candidatures would fall off. But, when it has worked for arbcom, rolling this out a little more would seem sensible.
Doc