Charles Matthews wrote: > Surreptitiousness wrote: > >> George Herbert wrote: >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who >>>> can run. Maybe bar admins from running for starters, that might reduce >>>> the risk of arbcom siding with admins. I don't think the community would >>>> allow Jimmy to appoint as he sees fit anymore, but if the board mandated >>>> a couple of seats had to be reserved fro picks, that might shake things >>>> up. That would involve the board getting down in the mud though, which >>>> they try not to do. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> You can't just throw out a possible new arbcom membership requirement >>> without considering the effects. >>> >>> >>> >> You can't? Is this why nothing ever changes? People are too scared too >> propose anything radical? >> > We're not short of proposals, usually. Having just nullified a load of inactive proposals, I can attest to that. I was wondering if there was a better way to organise historical and rejected proposals, but after a moment's thought I filed it away as too much work for too little return. > Progress could be made with > further functions being split off, in the way that ban appeals are now a > subcommittee function. There is no particular reason why socking or > civility cases shouldn't be handled in this fashion, where the evidence > is clear-cut enough (the usual case). I actually thought socking was devolved to the community through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Civility is harder to quantify. The community clearly feels it si an important policy, there was a recent RFC which stood behind it. I think there's a rewrite under-way regarding the policy itself. I'd certainly welcome a civility board though as a move forwards. > The kind of radical change people > don't want to see is from something monolithic that works (despite > grumbling) to something else equally monolithic that is a complete step > in the dark and unknown quantity. And don't forget that proposals have > been howled down, in living memory - at least if you take a pile-on of a > dozen people to be an expression of public opinion. > Having invested a large amount of time on a howled down proposal, WP:ATT, I need no reminder of that. I tried to poke some sort of life back into the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development but it didn;t come to aught. I think that one is going to die, no-one wants to take it forwards.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
