On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan <k...@ktchan.info> wrote:
> Brian wrote: > > I'm going to take particular issue with the last point here. > > On 3 June *2008*, right after last year election, Jesse Plamondon-Willard > (Pathoschild), one of last year election committee member, posted on the > talk page of either Election 2009 or election 2008 (and subsequently merged > with this year) "If you have an idea on how to improve the 2008 board > elections system for 2009, please post them below under a section name that > briefly summarizes the subject". > I believe I covered this in my post where I mentioned brittle and difficult to use tools that do not actually facilitate consensus building. Also, a single person providing a comment and the board acting is not, in any way, a consensus. If the litmus test for changing a rule is consensus, then why are rules being changed after only one member of the community thinks its a good idea? The answer is that this is not how the system works. Rules only change when those with power think its a good idea. > > Philippe posted this year rules on this mailing list on 27 May. I am arguing that the rules have always been broken and that the original consensus is no longer remembered. Thus, their merit, in its entirety, should be fully reconsidered. I do not know what conversations the board has amongst itself when considering how much they should restrict the voice of the community. I can say that it is not visionary in the technological sense and that it goes against the original vision for the WMF, as I remember it. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l