On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote:
Brian wrote:
I'm going to take particular issue with the last point here.
On 3 June *2008*, right after last year election, Jesse Plamondon-Willard
(Pathoschild), one of last year election committee member, posted on the
talk page of either Election 2009 or election 2008 (and subsequently merged
with this year) "If you have an idea on how to improve the 2008 board
elections system for 2009, please post them below under a section name that
briefly summarizes the subject".
I believe I covered this in my post where I mentioned brittle and difficult
to use tools that do not actually facilitate consensus building. Also, a
single person providing a comment and the board acting is not, in any way, a
consensus. If the litmus test for changing a rule is consensus, then why are
rules being changed after only one member of the community thinks its a good
idea? The answer is that this is not how the system works. Rules only change
when those with power think its a good idea.
Philippe posted this year rules on this mailing list on 27 May.
I am arguing that the rules have always been broken and that the original
consensus is no longer remembered. Thus, their merit, in its entirety,
should be fully reconsidered. I do not know what conversations the board has
amongst itself when considering how much they should restrict the voice of
the community. I can say that it is not visionary in the technological sense
and that it goes against the original vision for the WMF, as I remember it.