[WikiEN-l] Bureaucrats decide!

[Steve Bennett]

On 4/10/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> David, try to disregard your own personal feelings in this case, and
> look on this as a cold, emotionless calculating machine. Do you think
> this decision was fair? Do you really think that the voices of all

Isn't that exactly what we're arguing against when we denounce
"wikilawyering" and "policy wonks"? Perhaps we should replace
"consensus" with "informed, reasonable consensus" or even "intelligent
consensus". Many of the oppose votes were just junk. The whole
scenario sounds like a bunch of schools being given the power to
re-appoint or sack their school principle, and they're coming up with
reasons like "sometimes he's mean and makes the grade ones cry!"

To be quite honest, is there any reason why the community should even
have a say in appointing admns? Why not just have candidates be vetted
by bureaucrats (or some similar group if preferred)? Would the project
be worse off?

I find it so annoying that people could even consider voting against
Danny. I don't know the guy. But he has a huge amount of experience in
Wikipedia, has worked at a very stressful job for us, and regularly
contributes an enormous amount. Surely we should be asking "how can we
get more people like this on the project", not "hmm, do I really trust
a guy who resigned from the board and didn't tell us why??!"

Steve