User talk:ElectionJune2014/Referenda/5: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Meg Taylor No edit summary |
imported>John Stephenson (Problem of centralising content decisions) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::Just how is it a unique selling point when people are clearly not buying it? Active editor and author numbers have been declining. Gentlemen, let's be realistic here. Unless there are fundamental changes in the way Citizendium is organized, this project is well and truly doomed and that would be helping no-one. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 14:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC) | ::Just how is it a unique selling point when people are clearly not buying it? Active editor and author numbers have been declining. Gentlemen, let's be realistic here. Unless there are fundamental changes in the way Citizendium is organized, this project is well and truly doomed and that would be helping no-one. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 14:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::I think that the Editor seats do the project no favours not just because it makes them more difficult to fill and because half the duties aren't content-related anyway but because it encourages centralisation of content decisions. We used to allow Editors to exercise decisions via the workgroups, but now we have a more elaborate process in which the Council organises approvals, sidelining non-members with actual expertise. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 15:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:38, 9 June 2014
Not thought through
I'd like to see the discussion of this proposal because this proposal cuts to the core of what makes CZ different. If this proposal has been hashed out among the citizenry, I'd like to read it so that I understand the rationale behind it. But I can't support this on the face of it -- it overturns a fundamental premise of CZ. Russell D. Jones 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree completely. A number of changes recently have been weakening Editor authority, which is basically our USP (I don't think real names sufficient for that.) Peter Jackson 09:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose as a compromise the ME might be given a veto over content decisions, Editor qualifications &c. Peter Jackson 09:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just how is it a unique selling point when people are clearly not buying it? Active editor and author numbers have been declining. Gentlemen, let's be realistic here. Unless there are fundamental changes in the way Citizendium is organized, this project is well and truly doomed and that would be helping no-one. Meg Ireland 14:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think that the Editor seats do the project no favours not just because it makes them more difficult to fill and because half the duties aren't content-related anyway but because it encourages centralisation of content decisions. We used to allow Editors to exercise decisions via the workgroups, but now we have a more elaborate process in which the Council organises approvals, sidelining non-members with actual expertise. John Stephenson 15:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)