On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 16-03-14 10:33 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote: > > Per commons Policy's the RFC is valid. > > Then the policy is broken. It seems more than a little insane to me > that an opinion poll having had participation of a few % of a small > community (active commons users) can make a binding decision for an > entirely disjoint community many hundred times it size with neither > participation nor even consultation. > > At the very least, the opinion of logged out users should be sought or > at least vaguely estimated in some manner (I can think of several easy > client-side ways of doing a quick opinion poll of at least a sample of > them; or a couple of metrics giving hints). > > That RfC is akin to asking the print newspaper owners about making new > rules for all web sites. While I've no doubt that their collective > opinions would be very good for them, I'd like something a bit more > objective. :-) > > -- Coren / Marc > Marc, that is how the policies work all over. Non-editing readers have generally (with some exceptions) not participated in the crafting or revision of policies or consensus-based decision-making. Anyone who thinks the reader perspective hasn't been adequately considered should contribute that point of view to the discussion, but the non-participation of non-participants can't render all decisions invalid. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
