-----Original Message----- From: steve v [mailto:vertigosteve@yahoo.com]

Having no binding authority, and otherwise bogged down with a "mutual acceptance" policy (now experimentally being torched BTW), the result has been a bit disorganized, and slow.

[snip]

Then what should the current MC committee do? Oversee the open committee? I dont know. Ive suggested an NPOV committee would be useful, which sort of interprets NPOV issues case by case, and makes a centralized reference database for how to approach these cases. Depending on your view of disputes on WP and the disruptiveness of these toward articles and their improvement, then you can say an NPOV committee is either a great thing or waste of time.

I'm starting some experiments on Moderated Article Development. William Connolley are trying this (as peers) with climate change. I've also started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Inde mnity_Act/moderated and I hope to start a similar page for Terry Schiavo.

The rules are:

1. Anyone may take out anything they disagree with - provided they discuss it. (I call this a "text move") 2. Nobody is allowed to revert a text move. (I call this the zero-RR)

Ed Poor