Erik Moeller wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>The whole setup looks very odd for Wikipedia.
>Why is Erik deciding by fiat how things are run?
Yeah, I make all the important decisions. Like what
voting system to use
to vote on the voting system we want to use. I provided a rationale for
this decision right on the page where it was relevant. Please read it.
Of course, I've already read it, down in section 5.
But providing a rationale for your decision
doesn't change the nature of the decision.
Anyway, the problem is not simply that you're making the decision;
you and mav provide a fair case as to why such a thing is necessary.
The problem is that the basis for your /authority/ to make it
is not explained anywhere, and is unclear to many people there.
Ironically, if you really /did/ make all of the important decisions,
then the situation would be easier to understand!
(Which is not the same as better, as I'm sure you'll agree.)
>Given that you are, what's the relevance of
your comment
>that you won't participate if they're not run as you like,
Very simple. I choose how to spend my time.
Erm ... yes. That's not the tricky part.
The tricky part is, if you have the authority to make decisions by fiat,
presumably because you're running the process (and so you are!),
then one would expect that you'd make the decision by fiat
to run Round 2 in such a way that you would in fact wish to participate;
rather than let people vote on how to run Round 2
but make the decision by fiat about how /that/ vote is to be run.
This is an example of the irony above, actually.
>But anyway, I apologise if this sounded like an
accusation.
It's simply wrong. I have exercised virtually no
authority in important
matters in this contest.
And as mav suggests in his own post, you are to be thanked.
I'm trying to explain why the process is confusing,
so that you might come across as much worse than you are.
I'm not doing a very good job at that, apparently. '_`
-- Toby