[Foundation-l] tech team - content community bottleneck

[mike.lifeguard]

"just letting the devs get on with it and not complaining" may be the best
suggestion I've heard so far.
Mike.lifeguard

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Dalton [mailto:thomas.dalton at gmail.com] 
Sent: January 12, 2008 6:56 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] tech team - content community bottleneck

> So few projects have arbcoms that it's unreasonable to include
> specific mention of them into any foundation-wide policy. The current
> method of asking for a bug is decent, requiring a link to be posted to
> a page where consensus is displayed. If the devs don't want to waste
> the time/effort in ensuring that consensus truely was acheived, then
> there definitely should be some kind of team that would verify it for
> them.

Devs have been happy to check consensus, but it seems in this case
people disagree with the dev's judgement. If people aren't going to
accept the dev's judgement, the determination of consensus needs to be
done by someone inside the project. The ArbCom is the best option
where there is one, where there isn't, a crat would be best. If there
isn't a crat, then an admin. The alternative is just letting the devs
get on with it and not complaining when they consider a 2/3 majority
to be sufficient and you don't.