[Foundation-l] models for adminship/wiki leadership

[Jean-Denis Vauguet]

Brianna Laugher wrote:

> There would probably be very high overlap between admins and Community
> Leaders, especially at the start.As the process became stronger, it
> would be much clearer for new users who want to contribute, which
> process (RfCL/RfA) is appropriate for what they want to achieve. For
> status in the community, one should aim to be a Community Leader.
> And then maybe adminship would really become "no big deal". Instead of
> dealing with so many disputes, admins would be more about enacting the
> decisions made by Community Leaders - a better reflection of the
> division between the community role and the technical/maintenance role
> that are currently both conflated within "adminship".

The idea of having a list of trusted, well-skilled people is
interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User,
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPA ... are not so different from a
Community-Leader list _regarding one of its goal_ (ie. old-timers
helping newbies). But this is not a community-endorsement nor it is a
list of people who can Rule on.

The problem with separating adminship from leadership is that many admin
tasks require to rule on. Consensus is not always reached and admins are
expected to, well, rule on, then proceed (delete, protect, whatever).
Those two actions could be separated (a "Community-Leader" rules on,
then an admin puts the decision in effects), but I assess it would
impede the process.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070411/e494431f/attachment.pgp