User:Triona/Executive Authority

This is a work in progress. User:Jimbo Wales, in his capacity as a founder of Wikipedia, as well as in his capacity as a member of the board of trustees historically has filled a role as both an executive authority of last resort, and as a final court of appeal.

While the formation of ArbCom created a "court of last resort" which largely divested him of the need to act as a "judge" on Wikipedia, no such measure exists for the executive role.

While consensus, is, and always has been the principle decisionmaking process here, there have been times when decisions have had to be made by fiat, and even the foundation's statement of principles notes that it may be a necessary function.

As the arbitration committee has been charged with matters of conduct, and not matters of policy or content, it's generally accepted that they should not set policy. However, I do foresee that major questions of policy are likely to come before arbitration in the future - as a conflict over policy or content can spill over into a conduct matter if an issue of "pressing importance" is allowed to go unresolved for too long. Even when presented with such a matter as a question of conduct, arbitration may nevertheless be forced to decide policy, by judging whether consensus exists, or by other mechanisms not yet foreseen.

There is also the case of some unforeseen circumstance requiring action faster than we as a community can act., such as has happened with the child protection policy, office actions (ok, that one was a foundation issue), and other policies.

There was a time much earlier in our community where Jimbo would likely have stepped in, weighed the options, and imposed a decision on a matter like this, however he has largely stopped functioning in that role.

Before the situation comes up, we need to figure out who or what takes Jimbo's place in executive matters, and under what conditions. If a policy dispute threatens to go that far, I'd rather have decisions made by someone we put in place to make decisions than by someone put in place to judge conduct..

I have a rough proposal, but it needs work.
 * A small executive board, to be composed of an odd number of members, no less than 3.
 * This board would be accountable to both the community and to the foundation.
 * This board would be elected at regular intervals.
 * The executive board would have the following duties:
 * Impose decisions in pressing and unsettled matters of content and policy where necessary for the general health of the project and it's community.
 * Impose temporary decisions in urgent matters of content and policy where the urgency of such matter does not allow discussion.
 * Replace Jimbo as source of executive clemency regarding an arbcom decision?
 * They would also have the following restrictions:
 * No authority to suppress debate. Debate that violates conduct policies must be referred to proper dispute resolution channels.
 * The community would retain the ability to make a decision through clearly demonstrating consensus, even if that consensus is to overturn a decision of the board.
 * Where necessary, the executive board would have a right to a neutral determination from arbcom as to whether consensus validly exists in a given matter.