[Foundation-l] "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects

[Philippe Beaudette]

You know, as an aside: a general rule that I've found works pretty  
well is that legislation should deal with the norm, and not the  
exception, which seems to support Slim's hypothesis below (with  
autonomy comes the need for common sense).

I tend to think that over-legislating is as much of a danger as under- 
legislation.  We can't make rules for each of the details.  Let's  
trust bureaucratic/sysop/staff/community member judgment.

I trust Cary to know the broad framework of what we as a community  
stand for.  Then, I trust Cary (and Delphine, Tim, Mike, Sue, etc...)  
to interpret that in a way that's relevant to our community values.  I  
appreciate that Cary asked what the community thought about particular  
issues, but I believe the community is of sufficient size and scope  
that it's almost impossible to get meaningful direction or guidance in  
these issues.

Cary is in the position he's in because we as a community trust him  
(rather, Cary STAYS in the position that he's in because of that;  
there's no doubt in my mind that the community could exercise  
sufficient input to cast a vote of "no confidence" if we lost trust in  
him... although I think it VERY unlikely since he has proven himself a  
good arbiter of our values and goals).  I have no issue with  
empowering him to make decisions that are in the best interest of the  
community based on his substantive experience.

We as a community should provide the framework... the "norm"... and  
let our staff and established governance deal with the exceptions.   
Otherwise, we get bogged down in details...

...much like this email.

Philippe




On Aug 12, 2008, at 6:14 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:

> With autonomy comes the need for some common sense. I've had people
> impersonate me on other projects, and it has always been sorted out
> quickly by the bureaucrats; indeed, it's usually sorted out before I
> even notice it