On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:36:17PM +0100, Rob T wrote: > On Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 18:41:47 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >Since each of us may have conflicting ideas about what the final > >process should be, let's adopt the convention that if something on > >the page is not how you understand things should be, you should > >discuss on the talk page before making the change, so that we don't > >devolve into an edit war. [...] > I was wondering how we'll resolve conflicts, because not everyone will > agree on everything thats for certain. We don't really have a voting > system in place, and there's no "benevolent dictator" heading the > project unless Andrei has appointed himself for resolving conflicts, > but he's not really participating much at this point. We're kinda > leaderless and left with no mechanism for making the inevitable hard > decisions that we'll have to make if this effort is to move ahead. > > Any ideas? [...]
I don't have a good answer to this, but maybe we could use Wikipedia's method of garnering consensus before a major change is made? I don't know how well it will work, given our relatively small numbers, though. It would be nice if Andrei could step in and head up this process. But then again, he's a busy man and only does D on his limited free time, so it may be just a matter of waiting for a bit for him to pipe up. T -- Mediocrity has been pushed to extremes.