[Foundation-l] Communication

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> I would suggest that instead of a wall between the community
> and the foundation, there should be built a bridge. A form
> of consultation by a small group of "wise heads" from the
> communities, who know how they work; not as a decision
> making body, but purely informing about the realities in
> the various communities.
>

Good idea.

>
>
> I don't think there has *ever* been a case where a requested
> enchancement that had reached a community consensus being
> implemented had caused complaints by any but the regular trolls.
> I could imagine serious complaints being leveled if the implementation
> didn't adhere to the consensus reached, but that is just about all.
>
>
The thing is, our historical model doesn't tend to repeat itself except in
the usual societal roles.

>
> I am sorry, I just can't parse what you are suggesting here.
> This doesn't correspond to anything real in the past
> or anything hypothetically in our future.
>
> There has never been a "Get off my lawn!" attitude anywhere.
> What people have said quite often is: "Please explain your
> actions, and what variety of justification are they based on,
> pretty please, with a cherry on top!" And absent a clear and
> present danger, "Do join us, we respect and value involvement,
> within the context of the normal operation of our community,
> from foundation functionaries, no matter how senior."
>

I hope you're kidding about the politeness and lack of get off my lawn
attitude, because it definitely exists.


> I think the point is that it would be nice if there was somebody
> from the community who would be tasked with heading foundation
> folks aside, before the fact, when they are in danger of doing
> something seriously controversial that really *does* require
> a consensus reached.


Give me a pen and I'll write the first sentence.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan