The problem here relates to the fallacy of the excluded middle. It's the mentality that says, "You're either with us or agaiunst us." It justifies having two people in a street fight working together to beat up anybody who would dare to try to break up their fight. When you start by saying that there are only two possible solutions you probably insure that the best solution is frozen out. In the context of the BJAODN dispute it leads us to a keep it all versus a delete it all choice, and avoids forging a solution that would have wider satisfaction.
There often is a third option, but if no-one suggests it, it doesn't really matter. In my hypothetical scenario, there were two suggestions and everyone was happy with one of them, so no-one was likely to suggest another one. Often people get irrationally attached to their chosen idea and won't listen to new suggestions put forward, so my scenario isn't very unlikely.
It is also a fallacy to say that consensus and democracy are somehow opposing concepts. Consensus is clearly more democratic than voting. Voting implies a pe-defined question.
I'm no political scientist, but in everyday usage, democracy mean voting - they are the same thing.
The other fallacy to be avaided is saying that all policy decisions are final. We have shown ourselves ill-equipped to deal with subtle changes in circumstances when people insist on the strict leteral application of rules. Rather then defending hard-wired rules we need to be sensitive to changes, and the need to consider the opinions of those who did not participate in the formation of the rules for whatever reason. These reasons include not having been a part of the Wikipedia community at the time the rule was adopted. We need to recognize that the young people who will be most affected by rules did not have a vote in the way that the older generations chose to fuck it up.
True, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion.
That's the main problem with large groups - consensus becomes impossible to achieve. We've already had to switch to "rough consensus" in most places, which causes no end of problems since there is no real definition of what "rough consensus" is.
Then we need to make it less impossible. Rough consensus is nothing more than an intermediate stage.
An intermediate stage between what and what? No agreement and full consensus? If so, we very rarely reach the end stage.
The only idea I've had for dealing with this situation once it gets unmanageable is some kind of parliament. The community elects a certain number of MPs, and the MPs make policy decisions (just making policy - enforcing policy in individual cases remains with the community) based on consensus. Basically, mixing democracy and consensus. It is a far from ideal solution, but it is getting harder and harder to make policy decisions, and sooner or later it will become impossible and we will need something.
What makes it harder for policy decisions is the unwillingness of some to consider alternative solutions. MPs don't exactly inspire confidence in the real world; what makes you think that wikiMPs would do any better? Maybe we should be looking at entirely new ways of adopting policy. Are we capable of the imagination that such an approach would require?
I don't think wikiMPs would do very well, but I fear that keeping things the same as they are now will end up being even worse. We absolutely should be looking at entirely new solutions - I just can't think of any. If you can, please speak up.