Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WP:ESP/R

Contents

[edit] Reform

Obviously there are some problems with Esperanza, many bad things have happened as you may or may not know, including our founder leaving the project. So now, I will run a series of polls, which I really hate to have to do, but its needed. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justification

Allow me to justify these evil polls: JCarriker wanted the charter to be permanent, i.e. it can't be edited like a regular page on the wiki, but rather amended, like our constitution. Of course others wanted it to be like a wiki. Edit it, try not get reverted, consensus, edit wars, the whole deal. Esperanza I think may have been Jay's experiment in government. I really would like to hand back the power to him, and I might be able to. Sorry for not closing these things as I've been busy reforming WP:RFM and other things. I guess we should close them now. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Please sign all polls under your vote with

# ~~~~

[edit] Issues at Hand

[edit] Esperanzian Assembly

JCarriker's original idea of an Esperanzian assembly shall be retained and kept. Please note that the general population basically is the assembly when the assembly doesn't exist.

[edit] Support
  1. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Gryffindor 10:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Maltmomma (chat) 18:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 19:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC). While this isn't the way I would have organized this group. I see no harm in giving JC's vision a try. If it doesn't work we can always change it. Besides we don't have to do things just one way. Nothing prevents us from having more than one organization. If someone has an incompatible vision for dealing with this problem, they can always start another group (I would probably join both ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. While I disagree with the idea of an assembly, the charter cannot be disregarded; the point of a charter was to keep order. Though I disagree with both the notions of a bureaucratic charter and an assembly, now that the charter has been legally created (and assumed ratified), we must abide by the charter. Then, we could have a pseudo-election, and the assembly would then disintegrate itself, if the community agreed. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Titoxd 22:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC). I haven't really understood what was wrong with it in the first place.

[edit] Oppose
  1. Ingoolemo talk 03:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC) No reason general populace wouldn't be equally effective.
  2. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Phroziac (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. I can't get my congressperson to listen to me and they're paid! I am afraid it would be similar here. -Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 03:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Exir KamalabadiFeel free to criticize me 09:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mamawrites 10:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Not unless some reason for replacing the open consensus process is well articulated. I still am not clear about why a government was seen as necessary in the first place.
  7. Jen Moakler 18:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Too much bureacracy.Voice of All @|E|Merit 17:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
  1. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jaxl | talk 03:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. --MONGO 03:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Lisa 04:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Banes 05:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Dave C.talk | Esperanza 05:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Agriculture 06:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Alf melmac 07:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Not really sure what his original intent was. I asked, but with no reply.

  11. Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  12. Karol 16:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. Was never quite sure on his original intent. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Result: 7 to 6, the assembly won't be used.

[edit] Admin General

To give Esperanza direction, there shall be an admin general to coordinate work at Esperanza.

[edit] Support
  1. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think it is important to have guidance and coordination. Call them Project Leader if it helps, but Admin General works, too. Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 03:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yes. And Admin Gen works well, since it shifts away from the incorrect thought that this is a glorified WikiProject. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ingoolemo talk 03:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Howabout1 Talk to me!
  6. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jaxl | talk 03:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Phroziac (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. MONGO 03:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Banes 05:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Dave C.talk | Esperanza 05:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. Alf melmac 07:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. Maybe the Admin Gen should be renamed "Coordinater"--Exir KamalabadiFeel free to criticize me 09:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  15. I think it makes sense to have someone who formally requests that a specific person or team take on a specific set of tasks (once the tasks have been defined in a consensus-seeking process). Mamawrites 10:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  16. Gryffindor 10:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  17. Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  18. Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  19. Maltmomma (chat) 18:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  20. Jen Moakler 18:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  21. Definitely. -- JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza 19:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    Karol 16:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  22. Yes. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  23. --Celestianpower hab 20:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  24. Leadership is good.... as long as the leader stays belevolent... Sasquatcht|c 22:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  25. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  26. --Celestianpower hab 14:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  27. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  28. Acetic'Acid 02:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  29. encephalon 10:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  30. Titoxd 22:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC). Fingerpointing is sometimes necessary...
  31. Some leadership is needed.Voice of All @|E|Merit 17:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support Private Butcher 23:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose
  1. TINC. Agriculture 06:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Karol 16:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
  1. Lisa 04:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Result: Admin General will be kept. Overwhelmingly.

[edit] Advisory Committee

To help run Esperanza, there shall be a four member Advisory Committee.

[edit] Support
  1. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. The Admin General should be allowed vacation ;-). And, unlike Zaphod Beeblebrox, multiple heads are better than one. -Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 03:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jaxl | talk 03:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Phroziac (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Voice of All @|E|Merit 03:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Lisa 04:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. The more say the better, I say. Sasquatcht|c 04:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Banes 05:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Dont want the Admin Gen to become corrupt!
  9. Dave C.talk | Esperanza 05:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Alf melmac 07:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC) even four may not give 24hour coverage
  11. Gryffindor 10:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  12. Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  13. Maltmomma (chat) 18:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. I am in favor of this "check and balance" on the administrator general. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  15. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  16. Acetic'Acid 02:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  17. Pureblade 02:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  18. encephalon 10:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose
  1. Ingoolemo talk 03:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
  1. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Originally made as a compromise.
  2. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. MONGO 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agriculture 06:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. I think there should be advisors, but they are not necessarily helpers -- they may also serve as the voice of reason or devil's advocates, and help keep the Admin Gen honest. Mamawrites 10:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC) This might not be necessary, and may be to much.
  7. Karol 16:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jen Moakler 18:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. I support JCarriker's new idea(Having the Admin Gen as the only goverment functionary)--Exir KamalabadiFeel free to criticize me 08:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Titoxd 22:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Result: Passed.

[edit] Admin General Pro Tempore

If the community decides to keep the admin general, it shall be Redwolf24 as picked by JCarriker. Voting oppose calls for an immediate election.

[edit] Support
  1. Ingoolemo talk 03:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Until the term expires, that is. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jaxl | talk 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Phroziac (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Lisa 04:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC) (I explicitly support this in the interim period until the constitution of Esperanza is up and running)
  6. Yup. Let's get the show on the road ;-). We've already lost the founder of Esperanza-exactly the opposite of the intent of this group!!! We are supposed to convince people to stay. -Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 05:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Banes 05:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Definitely.
  8. Dave C.talk | Esperanza 05:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Agriculture 06:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Alf melmac 07:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC) interim measure support removed interim support. Alf melmac 12:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. I normally favor WikiDemocracy, but since the term of office is until January, I think we can have a temporary Admin Gen till then. Mamawrites 10:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Gryffindor 10:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  13. Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  14. Jen Moakler 18:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  15. Maltmomma (chat) 18:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC) If JC can't/won't do it, then Redwolf24 gets my vote.
  16. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  17. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  18. Unless the founder expresses an intention to assume leadership before this is ratified.—encephalon 10:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  19. Voice of All @|E|Merit 17:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose
  1. Sorry but I think the person should change every month or so. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    1. Hmm, the only problem I see with that is that it's hard to get into the flow of things in only a month... anyways, I just wanna get going more than anything else!Sasquatcht|c 04:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      1. Maybe 2 or 3 but I think the person should be elected. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 14:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think that it's best that elections hould be held as soon as Esperanza stabilises. JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza 19:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. While I would elect Redwolf24 (and not taking anything away from him), I think we must abide by the charter (see above "vote" in the first proposal/item). The charter should not be disregarded now that it has been legally ratified and created; an election must be held. For example, George Washington still had to run (albeit virtually unopposed) for the presidency after the Revolutionary War because the Constitution provided for presidential elections. In the same way, we must have an election (though I urge that Redwolf24 be elected as our administrator general). Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
  1. MONGO 03:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC) I think it would be fine, just until January, but with a vote of confidence at the start of December. No need on keeping an ineffective leader around for a month.
  3. There should be no such position. Karol 16:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Removed my support, now neutral: I am unlcear as to Redwolf's position/will, following proposal by the noble founder. Alf melmac 12:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Acetic'Acid 02:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Result: Passed, though I would like to shift my power back to JCarriker ASAP.

[edit] Shorter terms

If the community votes to keep the admin general and/or advisory committee, their terms shall be shortened from 1 year and 4 months respectively to something To Be Determined.

[edit] Support
  1. Ingoolemo talk 03:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. A rotating "government" would give more people a say. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jaxl | talk 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Phroziac (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Banes 05:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Agriculture 06:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Alf melmac 07:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Or maybe have a regular election, like every 6 months? Gryffindor 10:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  12. Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  13. Karol 16:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza 19:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  15. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  16. As suggested in the neutral section, I think 9 month terms would be perfect. Not too short, yet not too long. Acetic'Acid 02:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  17. 1 year is too long, especially if no assembly or advisory committee is formed.—encephalon
  18. 6 months is good, 1 year is just to long for the advisory committee.Voice of All @|E|Merit 17:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose
  1. Mamawrites 10:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC) More frequent elections will be distracting and keep us from doing the work of this association... which I would really like to get started with, perhaps sometime in late 2005? :-)
  2. Jen Moakler 18:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Maltmomma (chat) 18:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC) I agree with Mamawrites. Too frequently will be distractive.
  4. Oppose; too many elections would be distracting, and would take away from the general purpose of Esperanza. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
  1. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. MONGO 04:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Lisa 04:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. 1.3 years seems like a long time. Maybe 9-12 months? Constantly switching out people will make it more difficult to maintain continuity. -Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 05:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Dave C.talk | Esperanza 05:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Result: Passed

[edit] Redwolf24 should buy us all a round of beer and nachos

The community needs to have fun, relax and just cool off, we're all friends and this is supposed to be fun. Lets have some beer and nachos.

[edit] Support
  1. Agriculture 06:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Alf melmac 07:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC) make that fries with my cat, thanks
  3. the wub "?!" 11:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC) "Nacho nacho man, I want to be a nacho man!"
  4. I'll buy some too. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 12:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. I could do without the beer but nachos and marijuana are fine. O and dont forget biscuits. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 14:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong support. Throw in some pizza! Journalist C./ Holla @ me!
  7. Jen Moakler 18:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Maltmomma (chat) 18:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC) mmm mmm good!
  9. Banes 19:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Definitely! Only, I am under age for Beer, so is Redwolf I think!
  10. Yum. Jaxl | talk 22:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support. But replace Redwolf24 with Bill Gates. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support Redwolf24's consistent "spamming" of my usertalk means that I demand a 12 pack minimum!:)MONGO 20:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC). No comment needed. I love beer.
  15. Titoxd 22:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC). With chili or without chili? :P

[edit] Oppose
  1. Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Nachos are fattening, and beer is just empty, delicious calories.
  2. Strong oppose. I recently suffered greatly after adding too much hot sauce to my salsa. I propose a round of beer and suicide wings instead. --Deathphoenix 19:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
  1. I think we should all chuck in :-) Gryffindor 10:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Does it have to be beer and nachos? JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza 19:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It was Agriculture's Idea, he should buy the beer and nachos

Result: Vetoed. :D

[edit] None of the above

The community should be a loose-knit mutual support group with a noticeboard where we can ask each other for help, moan when needed, share ideas for reducing stress, and anything else we feel like. There is no need for such clearly defined roles and titles. Oh, and no more polls, please.

[edit] Support
  1. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 09:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. the wub "?!" 10:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC) - except for the one about Redwolf buying us beer and nachos of course :)
  4. Paul August ☎ 14:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC) (and pretty please no more polls — unless they are polls about people buying me beer and nachos where the only choices are yes and support)
  5. Karol 16:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Friday (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose
  1. JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza 19:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agriculture 23:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
  1. It sould be a mixture of the two. Also, I kinda like polls.

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  2. I agree with Journalist. --Exir KamalabadiEsperanza 06:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JCarriker's new idea

JCarriker has proposed that we erase the advisory committee and leave just the admin general, this should kill off ALL bureaucracy besides the leader himself. Ambi, who is against government seems to support it, and I do too, myself.

[edit] Support
  1. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. This is the compromise. No more voting for me. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    No vote. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 20:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Exir KamalabadiFeel free to criticize me 07:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Image:Seal-o-approval.jpg I haven't actually read the thingy, I'm just voting on the last poll!! TINEC!!!! El_C 07:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 13:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Fine by me.

[edit] Oppose
  1. TINCity TINC TINC, TINCity TINC TINC watch the Cabal go, TINCity TINC TINC, TINCity TINC TINC over the hills of snow! Agriculture 23:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Can't we have both? Gryffindor 12:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    Alright, this makes no sense... so basically we have a poll to from an advisory committee with lot's of support... and we have a poll to eradicate the advisory committee with quite a bit of support as well... the left hand and the right hand seem to be in disagreement... Sasquatcht|c 22:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely positively NO. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 14:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Imagine if Jimbo made all the ArbCom decisions by himself. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Acetic'Acid 02:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. No. If there is a leadership position such as an admin general, there should also be a check, despite how benign the currently likely leader is.—encephalon 10:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. No. Every organisation with a form of leadership needs checks and balances for that leadership. JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza 20:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. No way; and the pendalum swings the other way...Voice of All @|E|Merit 17:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
  1. MONGO 20:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. While I like the compromise, I do feel that there must be some form of checks and balances; I don't think that a four-member (how about a three-member one?) committee could do much harm, since all they would be doing is making sure the administrator general isn't about to do anything improper. On the other hand, the committee gives the benefit of proper checks and balances. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 20:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. I tend to agree with the string section, and where does it leave us vis a vis the beer and nachos? Alf melmac 23:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


Result: well it conflicts with above polls, so, failed.

[edit] We should spend less time discussing the shape and arrangement of the chairs, and just sit on whatever and wherever we can and discuss how we are going to help make Wikipedia a friendlier place

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral

Looks like the other poll up above...

[edit] Please list anything else you think we should vote on

Should we decide by consensus, or by voting?--Exir KamalabadiFeel free to criticize me 09:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer consensus, thus my "No more polls, please" plea above. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Polls are good! JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza 19:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Polls are neither good nor evil. Polls are just tools. Some things thay are good for, others they are not. This, I believe, is an instance of the latter. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
May I know why the founder left? What happened, I must have totally missed this? Gryffindor 10:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gryffindor. Some Esperanzians could use an update! JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza 19:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitely Consensus will run. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Eh, actually, itll probably be a low consensus. We are all basically the assembly, we just don't have to be elected. I don't see how we could do it by consensus only, seems like it would provoke edit wars, although elsewhere I am against making wikipedia a democracy, this may be an entertaining experiment. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
a no consensus reverts to keep the same, I don't see how we could do that here too easily. But, everything on WP:ESP/P will be decided by consensus, this I promise. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll results

Sorry to spam, but...Yay!!!I got all of the basic things that I wanted!!!:)Voice of All @|E|Merit 03:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/p/Wikipedia%7EEsperanza_Reform_15b6.html"