William Pietri wrote: > On 03/19/2010 08:06 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote: > >> I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global >> blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have >> them imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one >> project does not automatically make them a troll on other projects. >> >> > Global blocking doesn't require imposition from above. It could be done > cooperatively, without any community ceding jurisdiction. > Very true, and that's how we are trying to think about these issues generally, not just blocking. It doesn't make sense in most situations for the board or the foundation to interfere directly, nobody wants things to work that way. At the same time, a community does need to actively decide upon and maintain certain standards and not, as some people try to do, abdicate that responsibility back to the foundation. A community that fails to have standards is not really a community, nor is it worth preserving.
To indicate the direction we're going, I'll give an illustration in a less contentious area. We recently had steward elections, and as in past cycles, the final candidates were appointed by the board. However, the board has decided to remove itself from the process going forward, and let the stewards manage the appointment process with the assistance of the Volunteer Coordinator if necessary. That's more consistent with the community taking jurisdiction over its own affairs, or becoming more self-governing if you will. Incidentally, that offers a reminder that we do have some existing community structure to manage global project issues, whether it's blocking or something else. While I wouldn't say that the Meta wiki is coextensive with the global community, it's one of the spaces that can be used. --Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
