On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with > community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that > is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is free > from all possible criticism and drama. I would give the current system a > grade of "C-" for transparency and a grade of "F" for its compatibility > with community governance. I don't expect ether grade to get to an "A", but > I would be satisfied with "B" for transparency and "B+" for community > governance. > > > > Pine > >
Community governance is a tool. It is not the point. It is also not always the best tool. It's been an urge for years in some parts to treat the Wikimedia movement (or pieces of it) like a governance experiment to play out their personally ideal model for the distribution of power. But in this case, the responsibility of the WMF to fundamentally control access to project sites cannot be completely cleaved away to the community. If you would like to experiment with power dynamics, there are other better forums I'm sure. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
