Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Probing the bounds of your actual authority in our environment is a necessary thing that all of us do with every BOLD action, it's a consequence of the generally non-hierarchical nature of the projects. So I don't think it's justified to flog someone forever when they cross a line that was apparently obvious to everyone except them, especially since these things tend to seem far more black and white after the fact.
Of course if people can bring themselves to assume good faith, it all becomes somewhat easier.
Much confusion, it seems to me, between two "metrics" or axes: one to do with fallibility (anyone can make mistakes relative to unfamiliar or even familiar situations on the wikis, particularly when "implementation details" are in the hands of self-selected groups and process wonks); and another to do with politicisation (in which the default assumption is of bad faith in those who would disturb a supposed equilibrium) which is a version of small-c conservatism. The BOLD editor has trouble on both fronts ("you're doing it out of process" and "anyway change is only allowed after long debate").
Charles