[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[Jimmy Wales]

Delirium wrote:
> Part of the problem from my perspective is that it feels like you need 
> to make the transition to meta-level time commitment to have any say in
> how things are run.  

Why do you say that?  You have a major say in how things are run,
despite not choosing to get directly involved with most of it.

> I don't think that people who prefer to spend
> most of their time editing the encyclopedia, developing its policies, 
> resolving article, disputes, etc.---the people intimately familiar with 
> the workings of our main reason for being here---should be cut off from 
> knowledge of and a say in what's going on at "higher levels".

I agree completely.  But when we post everything we can publicly, have
open meetings, have community committees, and then people don't read it,
well, I don't agree that this is "being cut off".

In order to be involved you have to, you know, be involved.

>  Important 
> issues should be announced ahead of time to the community at large; 
> comments should be solicited and taken into account before final 
> decisions are made; and in very important cases even referendum-type 
> votes (or at least straw polls) should be taken.

This is exactly what we do.

> At the very least things should be routinely discussed on the 
> publicly-accessible mailing lists, and ideally important things should 
> be announced on the relevant wikis (i.e. Village-Pump type places) early 
> enough to give non-mailing-list folk a chance to weigh in.

This is exactly what we do.

Could we do better?  Of course.  But the best thing is that people who
feel as you and I do should get more involved in communicating and
summarizing for others, I suppose.


-- 
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################