Jimmy Wales wrote:
Maybe it slows down the voting a bit, but also it helps us to find a voting system that fits wikipedia. So maybe this slow discussion is helpful after all, in the longer run.
Sure! It's the wikipedia way to discuss everything to death in public forums for months until a rough consensus is achieved, and then of course to be accused of all decisions being made in secret, overnight, and by absolute fiat. :-)
It seems we don't have the same definition of what a consensus is.
This rigid vote where no alternative proposition can be submit is at the antipode of my vision of a consensus.
And I don't see anything encouraging in this discussion.
Hope I wrong...
Aoineko
--Jimbo