User talk:Talrias/Task forces proposal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I like the general idea. Although everyone participating in policy is good in theory, in practice it doesn't work:
- Some debates get quite technical, and generate a lot of words. Participants tend to join the debate without reading the words, so old ideas that have been rejected get recycled and conclusions are never reached.
- Even when everyone agrees that the status-quo is bad, and there is a clear consensus to 'do something', we can't get a consensus for one option when there are multiple choices.
- When it comes to a poll - folk again havn't read the debate, so some tend to oppose because they think they have a better option - when in truth that option has already been considered and rejected.
- Modest proposals are often blocked by a small minority who want 'no change' combining with a small minority who want more radical change. In truth, the modest proposal might in fact have been a good compromise.
Thus the idea of a representative group working through the options and bringing (by a consensus of the group) a recommendation - and that recommendation requiring to meet a lower threshhold of community support 'consent' rather than 'consensus' seems good. It might small like a cabal - but if the cabal is transparently chosen and its decisions require consent, then accountability is retained.
I do have problems with this particular proposal. The election/appointment of arbcom is a good model of choosing a representative group. But that model works because we have a host of nominees and many participating in the election. If we have multiple task groups on small subjects, that won't work. We will have few motivated candidates and many people not bothering to vote - that is like to produce unrepresentative groups of 'enthusiasts' who may well develop policies which have little chance of gathering wider consent.
I'd suggest a policy commmitee (Polcom). A standing group of 12-15 motivated users, serving for a year, and elected/appointed as is Arbcom. The group would have only one power - by consensus of its members to endorse a policy as a 'recommended policy', a recommended would then need the clear consent of the community (not a full consensus) to be carried. If smaller groups are required on a technical subject, the policycom can appoint them from its number or beyond. The full committee can then choose whether to endorse the conclusions or not. --Doc ask? 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad idea
This "task force" idea is stupid. No one should be "appointed" or "elected" or "put in charge" of developing policy. Trying to develop policy is the prerogative of each and every Wikipedian, as is the process of building consensus and implementing the policy. — Phil Welch 02:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Phil. We don't need another category of petty leaders. John Reid 05:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not voting; I'm doing what I can to squish this bad idea before it gets off the ground. Sorry. John Reid 04:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Things to consider
- Add m:instruction creep to the list of things to consider.
- Put first on the list of duties deprecating unnecessary policy. (Mark "historical and inactive.") The red tape on Wikipedia is stiflingly thick and we have enough process addicts as it is, who feel that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by doing something they don't want to happen is just fine as long as the point is the importance of process.
- Differentiate clearly between policy (unambiguous to apply and be applied by the clueless) and guidelines (which only work as advice to the editorial judgement of the clueful of good will, because the clueless won't understand it and those of bad will won't care).
- David Gerard 11:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
