1,183
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 345:
Line 345: + +
→Confused by current language
:::Vandalism implies ill will. Two members could have a legitimate disagreement over a matter of policy. I don't see how this could be resolved definitively without resorting to a board or member vote. JFDI is not appropriate to set policy that actually needs to be enforced or which the organization needs to rely upon for a legal defense. It has no official standing, so it would need a vote to delegate this authority, and to define procedures to govern conflict resolution, otherwise any JFDI Policy is invalid. It sounds like this would give any one of four hundred members the power to bind the other 399. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 10:04, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:::Vandalism implies ill will. Two members could have a legitimate disagreement over a matter of policy. I don't see how this could be resolved definitively without resorting to a board or member vote. JFDI is not appropriate to set policy that actually needs to be enforced or which the organization needs to rely upon for a legal defense. It has no official standing, so it would need a vote to delegate this authority, and to define procedures to govern conflict resolution, otherwise any JFDI Policy is invalid. It sounds like this would give any one of four hundred members the power to bind the other 399. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 10:04, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:::: If members are confused, then they will work to gather consensus. If they cannot gather consensus, and if someone resorts to bad behavior, then it is vandalism and covered under membership agreement. [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 10:12, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:::: If members are confused, then they will work to gather consensus. If they cannot gather consensus, and if someone resorts to bad behavior, then it is vandalism and covered under membership agreement. [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 10:12, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:It seems to me that this would be a fairly normal, easy, and generally acceptable practice. We start with using so-called member curated policies. And I think most of the time people are okay with those and willing to follow them. If there is general disagreement about the policy, then we should move up to a member vote to clarify the issue. These member curated policies can be enacted quickly without any need to wait for bureaucracy to work it out, and they can also be modified quickly when we need to. I don't think the discussion about vandalism on the wiki is really relevant. Nobody really expects the wiki to be the end-all be-all of policy for PS:1. Every policy relies on enforcement from actual real people to work. No one will accept that the policy has somehow changed just because someone went in to the wiki and edited the policy to say "No one may use auto-focus on the laser, '''except John Doe.''' Really, people just aren't that dumb. As it is, I can already go and edit any policy or bylaws page (it is a wiki after all). But that wouldn't change what the policy is, it would just make that wiki page wrong (and the change would soon be reverted by those who watch the changelog pretty closely). The same is true for member curated polices, which may not even have a wiki page. They might just be a sign in the shop that says "Don't do X." Changing the wiki page (if it exists) doesn't change the member curated policy. It only changes when the majority of people agree to the change and know about it. [[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:42, 28 July 2015 (CDT)