Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
I agree that community consensus on the policy should override committee consensus. However, there was no community consensus; we had a dozen or two people voicing conflicting opinions and proposals about whether to keep, remove, or replace that clause in the policy. Where there is a complete lack of community direction on that clause, I think it's within the committee's purpose to maintain the current policy.
Absolutely, assuming that the policy was properly adopted in the first place. Keeping and removing are clear options, but each proposal to replace needs to be viewed as a separate option. It's not enough to say that we need to replace something without saying what we want to replace it with. If the replacers have a conflicting variety of proposals let them work out an agreement among themselves. In parliamentary procedure this is what the sub-amendment process does. Only after the sub-amendments have been sorted out does the amendment come up for adoption.
If we were to strike out policy for which there is no community consensus, the result would be the same because we'd be forced to stop processing ancient languages until we had a policy under which to do so. However, I think holding requests in limbo indefinitely is a bad practice.
The first expression here seems ambiguous as to whether the original policy had no consensus or the striking out had no consensus. If there is no policy the processing of each affected language would need to be treated as a separate issue with the full range of the usual arguments being repeated. I do agree that keeping requests in limbo is bad.
Ec