On May 9, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:46:50AM +0100, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> >> In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real >> philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I >> acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do >> things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit >> semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) > > In the immortal words of Judge Judy; "Perfect, PERFECT!". > > == Perfect == > > I was just about to post about the need to assure the commons community > that there would be no repeat performance. This is a risk-management > issue: why would a commons user take an initiative that might be > marginalized or rendered futile in the near future? > > That kind of situation has a paralysing effect on a community. > > The paralysing effect has now been largely negated. > Perfect. > > == PERFECT! == > > Do you know how long I've been trying to encourage experienced/high profile > admins to hand in their flags? > > Why? It's a Poka-yoke / idiot-proofing measure > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poka-yoke > > As a precaution, one should not take (high profile) actions, without > confirming it with at least one other person in the relevant community.[1] > > By not having the requisite permissions oneself, one is forced to talk > with someone who does, no matter how impatient, panicked, or tired one > is. Obviously this doesn't catch all edge-cases, but it certainly > reduces the number of ways in which things can go wrong. > > In this case, Jimbo Wale's founder flag gave him _Uber_-Admin powers. > That's Got to Lead To Uber-Pain. And It Did. > > > So now that's fixed. I wouldn't be surprised if Jimmy's influence > in the community didn't actually *increase* due to this. [2] > > PERFECT! > > == Me three? == > > Jimmy Wales correctly identifies the fact that experienced > users who do hand in their flag should still be able to view > things, such as deleted pages, etc. > > In fact, the reason that I haven't been able to convince fellow > admins to retire, is because they really didn't want to lose > their viewing abilities. > > <drama> > Before, I was but a single voice, calling in the dark. But Now! Now that > the world's most high profile Wikipedian has *de-facto* finally > vindicated my position, after all these years... > </drama> > > ... it would be really nice to have a similar set of permissions > for "retired" admins and stewards. Please? <Puppy-dog-look> > > sincerely, > Kim Bruning > > [1]It is always wise to work in pairs anyway. Ask Ward Cunningham, or > any other Agile-type person you know! > > [2] This wouldn't be immediate. First some wounds will need to heal, > of course. And people still need to vent their catharthic > venting for now. >
This email is twice as good when you read it in Judge Judy's voice. -Dan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
