On 8 May 2010 16:48, Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about > policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually > but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified.
Perhaps, but that is a very small extent. Most of the debate has been about Jimmy, not about Commons policy on non-educational images. The same thing happens whenever Jimmy intervenes like this - it draws attention away from the issue that needs discussion (and I can't think of any time when Jimmy has intervened on a completely non-issue, there is always something worth discussing) and distracts everybody with lots of discussion about the extent of Jimmy's powers. You are right that Jimmy wouldn't be intervening if the issue wasn't controversial, but clearly the way Jimmy handles these things doesn't work since it causes much more drama than the intervention is worth. I think part of the problem is that it is very unclear what powers Jimmy actually has. These issues could be much better dealt with by an individual or small group that has been explicitly given the necessary powers (which Jimmy never was, he started out with ultimate power as founder and these are just the powers he has left) and is clearly accountable in some way (which Jimmy isn't - in fact, he thinks he is even less accountable than I think he is). Ideally, those powers should be given by the community, but they could be given by the board. It will be a real test of the maturity of the community - will we be willing to give someone the extensive powers that somebody needs to have? The community doesn't like giving individuals power, it goes against our entire ethos, but it has to be done. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
