On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org>
On 16-03-14 10:33 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
Per commons Policy's the RFC is valid.
Then the policy is broken. It seems more than a little insane to me
that an opinion poll having had participation of a few % of a small
community (active commons users) can make a binding decision for an
entirely disjoint community many hundred times it size with neither
participation nor even consultation.
At the very least, the opinion of logged out users should be sought or
at least vaguely estimated in some manner (I can think of several easy
client-side ways of doing a quick opinion poll of at least a sample of
them; or a couple of metrics giving hints).
That RfC is akin to asking the print newspaper owners about making new
rules for all web sites. While I've no doubt that their collective
opinions would be very good for them, I'd like something a bit more
-- Coren / Marc
Marc, that is how the policies work all over. Non-editing readers have
generally (with some exceptions) not participated in the crafting or
revision of policies or consensus-based decision-making. Anyone who thinks
the reader perspective hasn't been adequately considered should contribute
that point of view to the discussion, but the non-participation of
non-participants can't render all decisions invalid.