CZ Talk:Editorial Council Suggestion Box: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Before starting to vote about editcouncil matters it seems wise to ask all members of CZ for suggestions. Allowing the members of the editcouncil to get feed back and knowledge about the "world" support for motions. Last vote was 24-0 indicating 24 decide for all of the community - where authors cannot vote. Lets give them influence at least. --Robert Tito | |||
"Last vote was 24-0 indicating 24 decide for all of the community - where authors cannot vote." | "Last vote was 24-0 indicating 24 decide for all of the community - where authors cannot vote." | ||
Revision as of 14:28, 29 May 2007
Before starting to vote about editcouncil matters it seems wise to ask all members of CZ for suggestions. Allowing the members of the editcouncil to get feed back and knowledge about the "world" support for motions. Last vote was 24-0 indicating 24 decide for all of the community - where authors cannot vote. Lets give them influence at least. --Robert Tito
"Last vote was 24-0 indicating 24 decide for all of the community - where authors cannot vote."
- Unless I am misinterpreting what this represents, that is oligarchy, and a horrible direction for an online representative democracy. Authors should have representatives within the voting body that drives the project. This will kill this project unless remedied, and "We Ain't Elitist" needs a formal retraction. Stephen Ewen 14:19, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
I always thought this is what we would do--either that, or have a separate body. Certainly, let's draw up a resolution about how to get author representation in the Council. --Larry Sanger 14:26, 29 May 2007 (CDT)