[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Stephanie Daugherty]

so this leaves this proposed council with a responsibility to mediate
policy disputes and the authority to decide a deadlock in favor of a
strong majority based on strength of arguement and core values
(openness transparency etc) - this would basically end up being a
fairly weak system especially if the council members had their own
veto in council decisions and the community kept a power of referendum
to undo any council mistakes. The only danger i see is some people
will no longer be assured of the ability to derail consensus in favor
of status quo. Whether or not we want to give them authority to close
debate is well debatable but even with that we wouldnt be creating
another jimbo but rather an extension of the existing community
governance.  As for secret ballots we already elect a much more
powerful and perhaps more dangerous body by secret election and those
are the community reps to the board so i think it is a viable and
proven system.

On 2/2/11, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the
>> consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be
>> there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the
>> authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong
>> enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to
>> be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still
>> be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that
>> they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that
>> the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto
>> over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the
>> council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority
>> the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend
>> proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small
>> cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument
>> would be over. Consensus still wins.
>>
>
> Yes, blocking, by an small group, or even an individual (in other
> contexts) is fine IF they have a good argument, especially if it is
> obvious others in the discussion don't understand that argument yet. It
> should not result in sterile deadlocks though.
>
> I continue to support that kind of council as a promising idea.
>
> Fred
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>