Erik Moeller wrote:
In a voting process, the discourse period can be time-limited. Of course, people could continue to discuss the issue on a dedicated page, but an enforcable decision could be made before that.
And the same thing is true of a consensus process. We discuss until a consensus is reached an implement that; The Cunctator (or whoever ^_^) can continue to talk forever afterwards. (For example, Cunc still talks about getting rid of banning, despite the clear consensus in favour of banning. If we voted on banning instead, the result would be the same.)
Agreed, but IMO, that's exactly what *you* are trying to do ^_^.
Not at all, the idea is to decentralize power, and thereby reduce the potential for abuse. Voting seems to me very much complementary to the wiki idea.
Voting seems quite antithetical to wiki if you ask me. (Not completely antithetical, of course; the usual web page written by a single author is even more far off from either of these.) And I've never understood how decentralisation will result. What *would* help with decentralising administrators' power is mav's idea of automatic old hand status.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
What *would* help with decentralising administrators' power is mav's idea of automatic old hand status.
Decentralising administrators' power? Has that been a problem lately? On the contrary, I think. The desire for voting originates not in a strong, central decision-making, but in the lack thereof. We don't get anything done because there *is* no central authority at all saying "OK, let's do that". Because there are too many people giving too many opinions over too long a time, until noone cares about the topic anymore, or knows who wants what for which reasons, and there is never ever a point where a decision is reached. On the few occasions I remember when some "central authority" made a "final" decision, there was usually few resistance. Everyone said "well, if *Jimbo* says so...", glad that someone made a decision. Voting, for us, is not a way to get rid of the landlords who've been suppressing the poor village people. It's a way to canalize the flood of opinions so we won't drown in them.
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
What *would* help with decentralising administrators' power is mav's idea of automatic old hand status.
Decentralising administrators' power? Has that been a problem lately?
I don't think so. But Erik seems to think that it's important. I just don't understand why he thinks that voting would do this.
Voting, for us, is not a way to get rid of the landlords who've been suppressing the poor village people. It's a way to canalize the flood of opinions so we won't drown in them.
I don't think that we have this problem either. But at least I agree that this is the direction that voting would go.
-- Toby