On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:28:22 -0400 Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
My general decision-making objection is that in all cases, it should be:
1) Wikipedian discussion
2) Determination that there is a consensus
3) Statement that there appears to be a consensus, and propose something
based on that
4) Wait for comments on that proposed consensus-based whatever-it-is
5) Implement it
There doesn't appear to have been an interest in 3-4 here: instead it was
straight from "board determines there is a consensus" to "board
implements", which should *never* happen---it should go from "board
determines there is a consensus" to "board *proposes* an action to the
community."
Is this democracy or bureaucracy? I'm not sure. If I read it correctly, your
proposal is to:
1) discuss the merites of something
2) make a decision on basis of that discussion
3) discuss the merites of the decision
4) implement the decision
But who is going to decide that the conclusion after 3 (4 in your list) is
any more applicable than the one after 1 (conclusion 2 in your list)? So if
we go with you, the correct procedure seems to be:
1) Wikipedian discussion
2) Determination that there is a consensus
3) Statement that there appears to be a consensus, and propose something
based on that
4) Wait for comments on that proposed consensus-based whatever-it-is
5) Determination that there is a consensus on the something
6) Repeat 3-5 until everyone is too tired of the subject to make another
posting
7) Implement
Andre Engels