Since when has it been ArbCom's job to decide the community's consensus? It seems as though we're trying to expand their job, once again.
Chad
On Jan 12, 2008 5:55 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So few projects have arbcoms that it's unreasonable to include specific mention of them into any foundation-wide policy. The current method of asking for a bug is decent, requiring a link to be posted to a page where consensus is displayed. If the devs don't want to waste the time/effort in ensuring that consensus truely was acheived, then there definitely should be some kind of team that would verify it for them.
Devs have been happy to check consensus, but it seems in this case people disagree with the dev's judgement. If people aren't going to accept the dev's judgement, the determination of consensus needs to be done by someone inside the project. The ArbCom is the best option where there is one, where there isn't, a crat would be best. If there isn't a crat, then an admin. The alternative is just letting the devs get on with it and not complaining when they consider a 2/3 majority to be sufficient and you don't.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l