[Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
We do not want more bureacracy, we want to kill of bureacracty and remove
the people who are power building for the nuisance that they are... We can
observe objectionable behaviour and to the people who think otherwise, we
can show them how they are killing of our project. I would go as far as deny
them that it is their project. When new users are abused by trigger happy,
power hungry their admin bit loving vandals, we prevent the kind of
information from entering our project that informs us about other cultures,
people. It makes us a biases narrow minded ghetto of what we think we know
about our selves.

We need not more rules, we need observable friendliness, we need the tools
to reach out to the newbies.. Blocking is more acceptable AFTER it has been
tried to reach using the social networking tools we can implement. We
should. We will learn how to use these tools effectively and be less
devastating to the new initiatives of our new users..

The best proof that we are not doing fine socially is by investigating our
demographics... How many women, black people, minority people come to our
conferences, congresses. Welcoming them does not require extra layers of
bureaucracy, it needs a different approach.
Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/11/7 <wjhonson at aol.com>

> How about this one.  Every arrest (read block for 24 hours or longer) must
> be approved by an "Admin Supervisor" (let's just call it for now).  That
> Admin Supervisor, must use a Real Name and be Verified.
>
> That by itself, would greatly cut down on the policing actions of those who
> are, shall we say, less scrupulous than others.  Of course we'd still need a
> way to ensure that the Verified admin, is not the same person as a sock
> running the blocks, and is impartial, unbiased and uninvolved.
>
> No block may be longer than 24 hours without the approval of the
> community-at-large, no matter what the infraction.  Otherwise, we need a
> system of judges and juries who are *not* the same persons as the police and
> prison wardens.  What we have now, essentially allows a single person, or a
> single group of "friends" to be police, prosecutor, jury, judge, bailiff,
> and warden.  That in my opinion is what drives away a significant number of
> good prospects and it should stop.
>
> We should not be requiring individuals to know ninety six rules just to
> thwart policemen who think they want to harass the person out of the
> project.  Don't think it doesn't happen.  It happens all the time.  We need
> an Office of the Editor Advocate, and have it be obvious to all editors how
> to reach it.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>