Re: policy summary for past two weeks
> Nicolás> And this was handled pretty bad:
>
> Nicolás> 1) The update to the policy was obviously bad. It needed
> Nicolás> more discussion. Bad for the policy editors.
>
> What policy editors? There aren't any who have editorial
> power. And your comment is the reason why. Sorry, unlike with
> Christian, we do not have a ready scapegoat to blame this time.
Yes.. sorry for that.. I guess we all are the policy editors.. so.. bad for
us.. =)
> Nicolás> 3) If this `formal obection' mechanism worked this way here,
> Nicolás> then it's badly designed. People can use it for normal
> Nicolás> votes... so if 40 people likes a proposal and 5 don't the
> Nicolás> proposal get dumped.
>
> Creating technical policy based on popular vote is a bad
> idea. The design was predicated on the fact that people in this list
> would not frivolously object to proposals, and any proposal so
> objected to was so seriously flawed that no further discussion on
> that ptoposal would be worth it.
>
> If we assume that people in this group act rationally, then
> formal objections would only happen to proposals that have no
> merit. Ordinary consensus building is supposed to take care of flaws
> in non egrigious proposals.
I hope you were right. Time will tell how well this approach works.
Reply to: