On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what
entity)
would approve and implement them?
on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at
george.herbert(a)gmail.com wrote:
The community, by consensus, for approval.
Whoever chose to
participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.
This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the
beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do
you
determine consensus?
Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our
current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does
not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with
what the consensus stands for).
We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact
efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his
"street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led
to reductions in founder bit authority. I personally disagree with
that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now.
Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an
effective tiebreaker.
People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting
them.
It¹s a cautionary tale.
I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its
members
are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed
are
led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but
have
the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward
achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the
Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has
a
voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest.
That
leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group
stays
focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless
hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet.
Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is
needed.
Aaron Sorkin said: "Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision,
someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other
people's
lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to
inspire
us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we
can't imagine yet."
And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas
from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the
former
without feeling they must defend the latter.
It's time.
Marc
I stand ready to respect wisdom, but not authority. So if someone steps
up and proposes changes that make sense I'm behind them all the way. As
far as someone who thinks they can tell us all how to think, well, no.
We'll make any change that makes sense. What are your proposals? (Other
than having a great leader)
Fred Bauder
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: