Steve Bennett wrote:
IMVHO, there is a conflict between these two ideas: you are simultaneously filling a need, and hoping to retire from it. If your role becomes purely symbolic, then who will fill the hands-on role? Who will wade into a debate on WP:ATT and fearlessly revert 5 months of work?
Ah! Good questions but I think we have experience and therefore good answers.
There is *tension* between the two, to be sure. I am sometimes yelled at for not taking an active enough role, and sometimes for being too active. And I don't take that as a sign that I am doing everything right, but as a sign that I can and do make errors in both directions. I do have the great virtue of boring reasonableness, though, so I generally don't go too far in any one direction.
Here is an experience: I used to be (years ago) the only person who could ban people. I never delegated that power to Larry Sanger, in part because he would have banned people who were good contributors who simply had the audacity to disagree with Larry. (Cunctator was a prime example.)
We wondered: gee, what can we do, who else would have the symbolic authority to wade in and finally ban a difficult user? And we came up with a community institution to handle it: the ArbCom. And there was fear about this: I had proven myself to be basically non-insane with banning policy (though of course not everyone agreed with everything, but I don't think anyone seriously thought I was a total tyrant nor a troll coddler)... but would an ArbCom go out of control?
Over time we have slowly built the ArbCom into a viable institution that works reasonably well.
In a case like this one: we can think, gee, but who could wade in and put a delay and ask for a broader community vote on a major policy. And I think the answer is again: institutionalization of a process.
But, you know, institutionalization really really sucks in some major ways. So we like to keep it lightweight and as free from rules lawyering as possible. So we need to experiment and have the ability to turn back from experiments that went wrong.
Since the start, you've been the leader, as well as the token monarch. If you move purely into the token monarch role, can we get a new leader somehow? I think we will need one - there are so many deunifying processes in Wikipedia, that a powerful, unifying leader is a very good thing to have.
My daughter said something fun to me the other night. We were playing and she said in a voice of quiet power: "I will conquer your world."
Me: "Hmm?" Her: "Wikipedia. I will conquer Wikipedia and you will make me the new founder of Wikipedia."
Well, she's 6 years old, but maybe we could have a hereditary constitutional monarch. (This is just me joking around, please no panic. But be nice to Kira if you ever meet her. ha ha.)
Seriously, could we have an elected President who could take such actions? Wow, that is really hard for me to imagine. I would not wish such a job on anyone. It would be all the bad parts of being the Jimbo of the Wikipedia and none of the good parts.
If I understand you, you're saying that we don't technically need your rubberstamp to get a policy through, but from a practical perspective it helps. Is this symptomatic of an immature policy-making structure?
Yes. Absolutely. We have no other mechanism right now to say when something is or is not law.
Of course, England has the same thing. The Queen has to approve each law. The monarch has done so without exception since, well, I don't know right now, but you could look it up in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Assent
Well, with respect, the WP:ATT situation presents a pretty strong case for solving some of these problems urgently. Wiping out months of work is a big price to pay for "moving forward usefully".
I don't think any work was wiped out at all! At the present time the only change from yesterday at this time is that WP:V and WP:NOR do not redirect to sections in WP:ATT, but instead declare themselves to be merely explanatory whereas WP:ATT is canonical.
Therefore, with respect to the situation yesterday, there has only be a slight editorial change.
--Jimbo