On 10/27/07, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
If one were concerned about en.wp's culture *appearing* open to everyone to participate in the decision-making process, one wouldn't present proposals that way. That's all.
The claim that it was "a proposal" was Erik's, not mine.
This had previously been proposed, and approved by the community in near unanimous discussions where *I* the biggest thing resembling disagreement.
My message was not a proposal, except in the sense that just about any action any participates makes is subject to the review of the community.
Some people might think that the decision to give notice an time to respond downgrades something to mere "proposal" status, but that certainly isn't my view.
The primary proponent of the original change doesn't support it anymore. A significant part of the foundation staff would like to change it back. ... and, of course, The date was set far enough out for the community to shoot it down, though since there is no data and since there was no sign of that in prior discussions I would have been surprised.
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses"
The real situation would have been no different had a message from Sue or the board. Had the pitchforks come out they would have backed down. Or the change could have just been made without notice. In both cases the community will have ultimately decided this one as well.
If it will make people happier, next time I decided to take initiative on a fairly clear cut matter I will make that that I find a watery tart to throw a sword at me first. ;)