sannse wrote:
My other concern is directed at Jimbo. Until now banning policy has basically be set by him, and I wonder about the validity of any major policy change in this area set by poll. I'd be interested to know - if this is agreed, would it be a valid policy?
If there appears to be widespread consensus, as expressed informally through general agreement or formally through a vote with a very significant majority, then assuming I personally don't find the policy contrary to the values that I regard as non-negotiable for the project as a whole, then I will give my backing.
If the policy affects identifiable sub-groups of stakeholders, for example the arbitration committee, the sysops, or whatever, then in addition to general consensus, it would be important to carefully be sure that there is significant consensus within those subgroups as well.
Even in the past when banning policy was basically set by me, I have endeavored to set policy that is consistent with community consensus. For example, on many occassions, I resisted a ban that I thought was justified, because I felt that community consensus had not been reached.
--Jimbo