[Foundation-l] The foundations of the Wikimedia Foundation (was: Wikimedia Council)

[hillgentleman]

I have a question:

 There exists mechanisms that deal with the problems that the
arbitration committee
may face.   Anybody can request for comments, or even more informally, start
a page on meta and invite discussions.

 Meta-arbitration is an interesting concept.  But it has inherent un-wikiness.
As it has potential influence wider than that of the stewards, and even close
to that of the trustees, its legitimacy should be proportional or
related to participation.

 I have two basic questions.
1. Would this meta-arbitration committee's jurisdiction cover a project
which had decided not to participate?

2. Would the meta-arbitration committee accept a case *within* one project
brought on by someone who has hardly participate in that project, or otherwise
clearly is not a community member?

Best,
H.

On 04/01/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In a democratic state, a parliament (or actually the people) is the
> > Final Authority.
>
> The WMF isn't a democracy. The analogy of a parliament works, but only
> if you think of it as being a parliament of a few hundred years ago.
> The monarch was the final authority and delegated certain powers to
> the parliament. I think that pretty accurately describes what Ant is
> suggesting.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>