On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which > > Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of > > trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situation in > > which Jimmy does not have unlimited technical power. > > I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how > flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently > appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited technical > power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our developers do, at > a much higher level. > For what purpose? The purpose for which the developers have this "technical power" is obvious - they can't possibly do their work without it. With Wales, it's a power with no explicit purpose other than anachronistic deference. English Wikipedia has addressed this fluidly over the years: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales > So long as the power of the founder flag includes control over that very page, anything written on that page can't possibly be taken seriously. (BTW, shouldn't Larry Sanger have a founder flag too?) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
