[Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

[Brian]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc at ktchan.info> wrote:

> Brian wrote:
>
> I'm going to take particular issue with the last point here.
>
> On 3 June *2008*, right after last year election, Jesse Plamondon-Willard
> (Pathoschild), one of last year election committee member, posted on the
> talk page of either Election 2009 or election 2008 (and subsequently merged
> with this year) "If you have an idea on how to improve the 2008 board
> elections system for 2009, please post them below under a section name that
> briefly summarizes the subject".
>

I believe I covered this in my post where I mentioned brittle and difficult
to use tools that do not actually facilitate consensus building. Also, a
single person providing a comment and the board acting is not, in any way, a
consensus. If the litmus test for changing a rule is consensus, then why are
rules being changed after only one member of the community thinks its a good
idea? The answer is that this is not how the system works. Rules only change
when those with power think its a good idea.


>
> Philippe posted this year rules on this mailing list on 27 May.


I am arguing that the rules have always been broken and that the original
consensus is no longer remembered. Thus, their merit, in its entirety,
should be fully reconsidered. I do not know what conversations the board has
amongst itself when considering how much they should restrict the voice of
the community. I can say that it is not visionary in the technological sense
and that it goes against the original vision for the WMF, as I remember it.