[Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

[Dan Rosenthal]

On May 9, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:

> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:46:50AM +0100, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> 
>> In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real 
>> philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I 
>> acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do 
>> things from the "Founder" flag.  I even removed my ability to edit 
>> semi-protected pages!  (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.)
> 
> In the immortal words of Judge Judy; "Perfect, PERFECT!". 
> 
> == Perfect ==
> 
> I was just about to post about the need to assure the commons community
> that there would be no repeat performance. This is a risk-management
> issue: why would a commons user take an initiative that might be
> marginalized or rendered futile in the near future? 
> 
> That kind of situation has a paralysing effect on a community. 
> 
> The paralysing effect has now been largely negated. 
> Perfect.
> 
> == PERFECT! ==
> 
> Do you know how long I've been trying to encourage experienced/high profile
> admins to hand in their flags? 
> 
> Why? It's a Poka-yoke / idiot-proofing measure
> 	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poka-yoke 
> 
> As a precaution, one should not take (high profile) actions, without 
> confirming it with at least one other person in the relevant community.[1]
> 
> By not having the requisite permissions oneself, one is forced to talk
> with someone who does, no matter how impatient, panicked, or tired one
> is.  Obviously this doesn't catch all edge-cases, but it certainly
> reduces the number of ways in which things can go wrong.
> 
> In this case, Jimbo Wale's founder flag gave him _Uber_-Admin powers.
> That's Got to Lead To Uber-Pain. And It Did. 
> 
> 
> So now that's fixed. I wouldn't be surprised if Jimmy's influence
> in the community didn't actually *increase* due to this. [2]
> 
> PERFECT!
> 
> == Me three? ==
> 
> Jimmy Wales correctly identifies the fact that experienced
> users who do hand in their flag should still be able to view 
> things, such as deleted pages, etc. 
> 
> In fact, the reason that I haven't been able to convince fellow
> admins to retire, is because they really didn't want to lose
> their viewing abilities.
> 
> <drama>
> Before, I was but a single voice, calling in the dark. But Now! Now that
> the world's most high profile Wikipedian has *de-facto* finally 
> vindicated my position, after all these years...
> </drama>
> 
> ... it would be really nice to have a similar set of permissions
> for "retired" admins and stewards.  Please? <Puppy-dog-look>
> 
> sincerely,
> 	Kim Bruning
> 
> [1]It is always wise to work in pairs anyway. Ask Ward Cunningham, or 
> any other Agile-type person you know!
> 
> [2] This wouldn't be immediate. First some wounds will need to heal,
> of course. And people still need to vent their catharthic
> venting for now.
> 



This email is twice as good when you read it in Judge Judy's voice.

-Dan