> 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.
