You know, as an aside: a general rule that I've found works pretty
well is that legislation should deal with the norm, and not the
exception, which seems to support Slim's hypothesis below (with
autonomy comes the need for common sense).
I tend to think that over-legislating is as much of a danger as under-
legislation. We can't make rules for each of the details. Let's
trust bureaucratic/sysop/staff/community member judgment.
I trust Cary to know the broad framework of what we as a community
stand for. Then, I trust Cary (and Delphine, Tim, Mike, Sue, etc...)
to interpret that in a way that's relevant to our community values. I
appreciate that Cary asked what the community thought about particular
issues, but I believe the community is of sufficient size and scope
that it's almost impossible to get meaningful direction or guidance in
these issues.
Cary is in the position he's in because we as a community trust him
(rather, Cary STAYS in the position that he's in because of that;
there's no doubt in my mind that the community could exercise
sufficient input to cast a vote of "no confidence" if we lost trust in
him... although I think it VERY unlikely since he has proven himself a
good arbiter of our values and goals). I have no issue with
empowering him to make decisions that are in the best interest of the
community based on his substantive experience.
We as a community should provide the framework... the "norm"... and
let our staff and established governance deal with the exceptions.
Otherwise, we get bogged down in details...
...much like this email.
Philippe
On Aug 12, 2008, at 6:14 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> With autonomy comes the need for some common sense. I've had people
> impersonate me on other projects, and it has always been sorted out
> quickly by the bureaucrats; indeed, it's usually sorted out before I
> even notice it
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
well is that legislation should deal with the norm, and not the
exception, which seems to support Slim's hypothesis below (with
autonomy comes the need for common sense).
I tend to think that over-legislating is as much of a danger as under-
legislation. We can't make rules for each of the details. Let's
trust bureaucratic/sysop/staff/community member judgment.
I trust Cary to know the broad framework of what we as a community
stand for. Then, I trust Cary (and Delphine, Tim, Mike, Sue, etc...)
to interpret that in a way that's relevant to our community values. I
appreciate that Cary asked what the community thought about particular
issues, but I believe the community is of sufficient size and scope
that it's almost impossible to get meaningful direction or guidance in
these issues.
Cary is in the position he's in because we as a community trust him
(rather, Cary STAYS in the position that he's in because of that;
there's no doubt in my mind that the community could exercise
sufficient input to cast a vote of "no confidence" if we lost trust in
him... although I think it VERY unlikely since he has proven himself a
good arbiter of our values and goals). I have no issue with
empowering him to make decisions that are in the best interest of the
community based on his substantive experience.
We as a community should provide the framework... the "norm"... and
let our staff and established governance deal with the exceptions.
Otherwise, we get bogged down in details...
...much like this email.
Philippe
On Aug 12, 2008, at 6:14 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> With autonomy comes the need for some common sense. I've had people
> impersonate me on other projects, and it has always been sorted out
> quickly by the bureaucrats; indeed, it's usually sorted out before I
> even notice it
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l