On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
I would suggest that instead of a wall between the community and the foundation, there should be built a bridge. A form of consultation by a small group of "wise heads" from the communities, who know how they work; not as a decision making body, but purely informing about the realities in the various communities.
Good idea.
I don't think there has *ever* been a case where a requested enchancement that had reached a community consensus being implemented had caused complaints by any but the regular trolls. I could imagine serious complaints being leveled if the implementation didn't adhere to the consensus reached, but that is just about all.
The thing is, our historical model doesn't tend to repeat itself except in the usual societal roles.
I am sorry, I just can't parse what you are suggesting here. This doesn't correspond to anything real in the past or anything hypothetically in our future.
There has never been a "Get off my lawn!" attitude anywhere. What people have said quite often is: "Please explain your actions, and what variety of justification are they based on, pretty please, with a cherry on top!" And absent a clear and present danger, "Do join us, we respect and value involvement, within the context of the normal operation of our community, from foundation functionaries, no matter how senior."
I hope you're kidding about the politeness and lack of get off my lawn attitude, because it definitely exists.
I think the point is that it would be nice if there was somebody from the community who would be tasked with heading foundation folks aside, before the fact, when they are in danger of doing something seriously controversial that really *does* require a consensus reached.
Give me a pen and I'll write the first sentence.