> i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the > consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be > there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the > authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong > enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to > be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still > be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that > they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that > the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto > over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the > council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority > the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend > proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small > cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument > would be over. Consensus still wins. >
Yes, blocking, by an small group, or even an individual (in other contexts) is fine IF they have a good argument, especially if it is obvious others in the discussion don't understand that argument yet. It should not result in sterile deadlocks though. I continue to support that kind of council as a promising idea. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
