[Foundation-l] tech team - content community bottleneck

Sat Jan 12 23:03:14 UTC 2008

On Jan 12, 2008 5:55 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So few projects have arbcoms that it's unreasonable to include
> > specific mention of them into any foundation-wide policy. The current
> > method of asking for a bug is decent, requiring a link to be posted to
> > a page where consensus is displayed. If the devs don't want to waste
> > the time/effort in ensuring that consensus truely was acheived, then
> > there definitely should be some kind of team that would verify it for
> > them.
>
> Devs have been happy to check consensus, but it seems in this case
> people disagree with the dev's judgement. If people aren't going to
> accept the dev's judgement, the determination of consensus needs to be
> done by someone inside the project. The ArbCom is the best option
> where there is one, where there isn't, a crat would be best. If there
> isn't a crat, then an admin. The alternative is just letting the devs
> get on with it and not complaining when they consider a 2/3 majority
> to be sufficient and you don't.

I can agree with that, bureaucrats tend to be relatively small in
number and should be well-versed in determining consensus at their
home project. For extremely small projects (ie those without a
bureaucrat), consensus should be able to determine directly.

--Andrew Whitworth