On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:28:22 -0400 Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote: My general decision-making objection is that in all cases, it should be:
- Wikipedian discussion
- Determination that there is a consensus
- 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