On 3/21/07, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
respect and trust by the community *at large. His
position is one of
*trust, and In order for his role to have meaning, this role needs to
remain largely undefined and unconstrained by any set boundaries or
constitutional delineations. He can negate consensus, simply because
he can, as he has in the past, and as he will continue to for as long
as he is active.
"His authority is based on trust" is a perfectly acceptable answer, if
that's what it is. But how does that help all the newbies who haven't
even heard of him? Surely we can define this a bit more precisely.
I realise that in my original post it perhaps sounded like I was
challenging his authority. I'm not. I'm just trying to understand it,
and understand what is different now from, say, 2 years ago. We hear
from him much less frequently, but when we do, it seems to be more
disruptive.
Steve