sannse wrote:
My other concern is directed at Jimbo. Until now
banning policy has
basically be set by him, and I wonder about the validity of any major policy
change in this area set by poll. I'd be interested to know - if this is
agreed, would it be a valid policy?
If there appears to be widespread consensus, as expressed informally
through general agreement or formally through a vote with a very
significant majority, then assuming I personally don't find the policy
contrary to the values that I regard as non-negotiable for the project
as a whole, then I will give my backing.
If the policy affects identifiable sub-groups of stakeholders, for
example the arbitration committee, the sysops, or whatever, then in
addition to general consensus, it would be important to carefully be
sure that there is significant consensus within those subgroups as
well.
Even in the past when banning policy was basically set by me, I have
endeavored to set policy that is consistent with community consensus.
For example, on many occassions, I resisted a ban that I thought was
justified, because I felt that community consensus had not been
reached.
--Jimbo