Thomas Dalton writes:
> 2008/6/22 Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>:
>> I don't think education is exclusive as binding policy. Any policy we
>> publish is going to have a binding effect, to the extent that people
>> rely on our representations about what we do. That's why we have
>> taken
>> the pains to make the policy match our actual practice as completely
>> as possible.
>
> You'll note, I said "primarily as binding policy". I know it is
> binding policy now, but that's not its primary function, its primary
> function is clearly one of education, and that should be changed.
I am not sure what it is you are saying should be changed (it's
unclear which function is referenced by "that"), but there is no
question that the document has to function both as a statement of
binding policy and as an educational document. Attempting to separate
one from the other is asking for trouble down the line.
We considered for a while separating the current policy into a
statement of policy and an FAQ. That would have "solved" the length
problem, more or less, but it also would create a problem, since the
FAQ itself would have functioned as a legally binding public promise
as well. In other words, it would have seemed to be more elegant but
would have raised potentially more legal problems, especially to the
extent that the public relied on representations in the FAQ rather
than in the policy statement proper.
We really did review a range of options before taking the particular
approach we took, and we took this approach in full awareness that
we'd end up with a longer work product. But that turns out to be the
more legally prudent course to take.
--Mike