> on 2/1/11 9:02 AM, Stephanie Daugherty at [email protected] wrote: > >> (This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as >> HTML and mucked up the formatting) >> >> I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent >> dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their >> responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene. >> >> I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an >> open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with >> the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process. >> Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we >> can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our >> project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no >> involvement in or connection to en.wiki. >> >> I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal >> charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on >> which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect >> those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple >> document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all >> the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community, >> it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe >> that they could approve such a document without taking on the >> oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a >> lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation. >> The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive >> aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of >> governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through >> careful deliberation and consent of the entire community. > > Thank you, Stephanie. Now I understand why some of the other posts to > this > and other Lists are nearly unreadable to me. I usually simply skip them > without having to take the time do decipher them. But yours was worth > both > the time and struggle. And, thanks to the crappy weather we're having > here > on the east coast of the USA, most of my appointments have been postponed > 'til another day. I'm like a school kid with a snow day!:-) > > I like your idea of an elected council. Unlike the present Arbitration > Committee, they would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or > behavioral disputes. They would hear appeals from persons who have been > through the existing process. Their role being to serve as the final > arbiter > in intractable disputes, and an entity to hear and review proposals for > change; and have the power to institute that change. That > Community-elected > body would then elect their leader who would have the responsibility of > being the final arbiter of disputes within that council. That council > could > (and should) have a Mailing List, or other such mechanism for the > Community > members at large to ask questions and provide their input. > > The keys are stability, accountability and openness! > > Marc
You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
