Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees


 * Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees/Archive 1

Rewritten
Thoughts? rootology ( C )( T ) 17:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely nothing wrong with the current structure—or, at least, nothing which this idea would solve. While separation of powers is quite good when running a country (though Britain's managed perfectly well for some centuries now), Wikipedia doesn't need it, or the bureaucracy the proposal would create.
 * Elections are bad, multiple elections for multiple jobs and creating multiple high-level authorities is worse. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► ballotbox ─╢ 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? What do you propose instead ? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Treasury tag - why do you think there's no separation of powers in British democracy? If there isn't I'm moving. Independent judiciary? check. Independent legislature? check. I'll grant the second house is a strange anachronism, but it has performed adequately for several centuries. Independent executive? Well sort of - in common with many other parliamentary democracies. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to revert/alter Root - but seems you need an extraordinary committee to investigate the possibility of v. high level corruption. I'd imagine for most of the time membership of it would be something of a sinecure, and regular meetings probably unnecessary, but it is needed for if/when the time comes. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How about Department of Internal Affairs WP:DOIA


 * 1) I support this effort to bring leadership to WP. Truth...there is no one (or group of ones) at the helm, guiding the vessel. Right now we are on auto-pilot. And so we wander. Quality Leadership provides goals, creates ambition, stimulates ideas, promotes progress. We need someone (or groups of someones...read:committees) in the drivers seat. Committees are a natural part of business/social/governmental life. Failures are abundant but successes are overabundant..1000X. Some editors may be afraid of a committees dominance or over control or corruption or cabals or whatever keeps them awake at night. They will be good watchdogs. --Buster7 (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is really tiring that EVERY SINGLE TIME SOMEONE BRINGS UP A NEW IDEA, THE VERY FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST IT IS "BUREAUCRACY" What is the current system? "After eliminating other candidates, the form that fits best [wikipedia] is that of bureaucracy" Harvard Independent The WP:BURO argument ignores the current system and places a simplistic derogatory label on the potential of beneficial and wide spread change. Ikip (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure

 * Too many layers of Committees. The structure is too complex. Can have a better result with fewer Committees. I'll draft an alternative of this idea that includes more ArbCom subcommittees with a mixture of people elected from the Community and Arbs, and a separate Standards/Appeal Committee. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * they're not layers--they're roles, except for the appeal committee and the standards committee. Flo, the point of this is to have an alternative to arbcom for some matters, not to expand the arb com role. There are 2 things I would change. First, the standards committee can deal with problems not just at arb com but similar problems with the other committees. Second, I think we do very much need a content committee, and so I think do most Wikipedians, based on the discussion at User:Giano/The future DGG (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It will take loads of justification to explain why that this many new Committees are needed in an organization that is thriving without them now. If the Committees are going to be functional, then they will need to have people on them that have some experience about how matters are customarily dealt with now. As well, the various Committees need to have a general agreement about the way that policy and processes will happen. Otherwise, we would have different Committees making inconsistent ruling or undoing the work of another one. So, while I agree with the idea that more people can be involved in the doing parts of the work that ArbCom does now. I think that adding many Committee's that are totally separate from ArbCom will not work out as well as some people think it will. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've thought about that a lot, especially in the kerkuffles of the past week, but it seems like more than ever that people want the scope and aims of our governance defined and able to scale past consensus log jams. I think this now gets that done and hits those targets long-term. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated, clarified
Fresh feedback, please. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yo dawg
Yo dawg, we heard you like committees, so we put a committee in your committee so you can mediate while you mediate . --MZMcBride (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how does having a touch of order and a way to actually close discussions hurt the 'pedia? rootology ( C )( T ) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a proper reply after I consult with the On-wiki Response Committee. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not helping, bro. rootology ( C )( T ) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking committees on this motherfucking encyclopedia! Samuel L. Jackson "?!"

A much simpler proposal
A lot of the gridlock on Wikipedia comes from the necessity of getting "consensus" for all policy changes. Why not allow policy to be changed by simple majority vote? 128.104.60.200 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually a much harder proposal than this one, to be honest. Much harder, since that's a fundamental change, rather than changing our structure around to be scalable and harder to game like I am suggesting here. See User:Rootology/Wikipedia is broken and failing. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good proposal, and would correct many of the problems we have. How do we get there though, from where we are today? This is one of several proposals around at the moment, and there is a good chance it will fail due to "no consensus to change". I'm beginning to believe that more important than the end result is the way we get there, and the decision making methods developed along the way. Kevin (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the anon's idea. That there should be separate arbitration and policy committees seems sensible enough, but I worry that the appeals committee will just generate more drama if an appeal ever gets that far. In other words, if Arbcom or Policycom rejects an appeal, then the appellant will just bother Appealcom every time, and a lot of effort will be wasted. There needs to be some kind of mechanism to prevent frivolous appeals to Appealcom. Chutznik (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think could be a good method for that? In practice, I think the vast bulk of cases would be simple "Reject" if they came all the way to the Appeals group. My "mechanical" envisioning of how that would work would require linking back to the original case and the failed appeal, so the viability of an appeal would be there clear as day. To be honest, that hadn't even been one of my concerns. I'd actually thought it would or may be challenging finding trusted people that would have no qualms of stepping on toes by actually enacting Appeals Committee voidings. rootology ( C )( T ) 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're discussing different things here. One the one hand we have a governance structure, and on the other a mechanism for decision making. If we don't have a good mechanism for making decisions (i.e. we keep "consensus") then the governance structure will have it's agenda filled with things that would be better handled elsewhere. I see a decision making process as the foundation on which all the other structures are built. Without that foundation, you just have a hollow shell. I think this could do with some more thought/discussion, but I'm loathe to fracture the governance discussions any further. Kevin (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This proposal would dramatically increase the number of ArbCom/PolCom cases
In practice every dispute is a mixture of behaviour, policy and content questions. And in case it isn't, that's easily fixed if you really want to fix it. Therefore the user who first runs to ArbCom or PolCom has free choice between the two committees. You can't leave this advantage to your opponent, can you? So you have to file your case first. Hans Adler 00:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Content matters
"There is a rapidly growing consensus that the use of our traditional "consensus" methods of decision making seem to still be working alright for content matters,"

Umm, I think not. Anyone who thinks the consensus model's working fine on content is living in a dream world where no ABRMACs have ever taken place. Mind, a true consensus model in which comments inconsistent with policy are discounted and not just treated as votes works, but this has proven nearly impossible to achieve at Wikipedia, in large part because of the obvious question of who decides which !votes are and aren't in accordance with policy. The refereed discussion that occurred on the Macedonia naming dispute was a step in the right direction, allowing independent referees to monitor the discussion and to weigh the arguments using factors other than mere numbers.

Having said all this, I will absolutely not support any governance reform effort that does not include some efforts at dealing with our content dispute resolution procedures, whether by the establishment of a new committee or by the establishment of such methods as were used to solve the Macedonia disputes. Heimstern:Away (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree--in fact, this is the origin of most of the behavior or policy disputes--the disagreement about what content in suitable for Wikipedia, or what that content ought to be., Some of the behavior problems are unsuitable personality for cooperative work in general, but most of them arise over specific issues--naming disputes, format disputes, whether or not content violates a particular policy. Solve the problem of what to put in articles and there won;t be anything much to misbehave about, except vandalism which we hardly need a high level committee to deal with--and occasional meltdowns and the like, where we still will. Policy similarly, the questions about policy mainly is wether it will permit a certain type of content to be in, or not in. Those are content disputes. The BLP policy even, is at heart a content policy. DGG (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Heimstern and DGG - that arguments over content drive the behavior disputes and that a lot of them end up at Arbcom. The article page is currently most dismissive of the idea - since we have some discussion here, could it be changed to "Content governance structures have been proposed..."? There's some talk of this at WP:Governance review/Proposals - non-permanent, ad hoc, whatever would sound better. It could still be left to Arbcom to decide whether a given dispute is intractable enough to send there. Novickas (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions
I like it. Something like it will happen at some point. Anyways, I imagine this is kind of a working draft, but I have some questions.

How many members on each committee? Can they amend the "constitution" (like create a content committee, or other things)? Can a voiding by the Appeals committee lead to a no consensus at the lower levels? Impeachment? Is this based on a certain countries government? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the only guidance I can give, since your questions are the deepest thoughts I'd gone beyond what you see. It's meant to be simple, very straightforward, and tidy as a system. That's what I aimed for in writing it. Take this, run with it. Seriously. I just wrote the blueprints, and never intended to do the neat facade and Martha Stewart decorating.

"How many members on each committee?


 * Ideally each of the three should have a number of seats equal to the other for scale, to get the broadest number of trusted people. How many does the AC have today that actually participate? Let's say 15 for argument's sake.


 * To start to populate this out you'd just take the current ArbCom, and flip them into the new system with their existing tranche schedule, on the magic go-live date. However, the timing of the tranches would need to be adjusted into the new 2 year system -- so only two tranches. How to reorganize? The only fair way is compare their remaining time under the original tranche system vs. the new, see who's the shortest remaining tenure. Compare that to what passing percentage each had in their respective elections vs. their number of supports. Low Man across both goes into the next expiring tranche of the two tranche model. The metrics on this for any of our numbers whizzes would be ludicrously trivial to sort out. It's stupid basic math and analysis. That's how you then have reseated Old ArbCom to Newer ArbCom. 15 people, so 8 go into the two-year tranche, 7 into the one-year tranche. Alternate elections then: 2011: 7 chosen. 2012: 8 chosen. And so on, or however the math works out to always aim for an odd-number of Arbs seated every Jan 1.

Let's use January 1, 2010 for example as when we start to convert. New ArbCom goes live then. For the PolCom and AppCom, you will need initially to fully populate them with people. Let's say 11 each to start. PolCom election runs two weeks, closes on April 20, 2010. You take the top 11 by percentage, and split into tw May 1, 2010 the PolCom goes live. Top 6 goes in 2-year tranche, Bottom 5 in the 1 year. Next year, you elect enough people to keep the Committees in line by population, always aim for an odd number on the launch date of the next session. Same for AppCom... if Jan 1 start for ArbCom, and May 1 for PolCom, let's say Sep 1 for AppCom. Something very simple like that.

Can they amend the "constitution" (like create a content committee, or other things)?


 * The ArbCom or PolCom can certainly try, but if someone appeals it to the Appeals Committee (AppCom?), and the AppCom finds out it beyond their power and community-mandated writ, the AppCom could just erase/undo it. Literally. But only if it's brought as a 'winning case' to make up a phrase. Remember, the AppCom has one power in this: undo final actions by the other two. Arb or Polcom announcing they made a decision, to start a group, counts a decision. The AppCom is the final arbiter on any group motion/action/decision by the others.

Can a voiding by the Appeals committee lead to a no consensus at the lower levels?


 * If you mean could the AppCom totally break a Final Decision by ArbCom? I guess if they voided on Appeal 11 of 12 things in a Decision, sure. But you'd hope anyone elected to THAT group would have the common sense to do it right, with their own AppCom Proposed Decision.


 * I envisioned it as, I appeal a 15-point decision by ArbCom or PolCom. I lay out my appeal. What I want struck. They review, arguments, etc., accept, run the case, and they basically republish or repost the original decision either as-is: nothing removed, case dismissed, or... they republish it, but 'expunge' or leave off 5 of the voted-on points of that decision. Case closed, the 2nd, AppCom version with removed/vacated sections. Or, they can simple mandate the original case be amended, which is probably easier. But same end result, the original decision stands, or with 1 or more voted-on bits of it nullified.

''Impeachment? ''


 * That's not what this proposal was meant to do and I strongly advise not pulling recall, impeachments, etc. into this. Separate page.


 * But... the ArbCom & PolCom in this system, you'll notice, have NO power to directly appoint anyone to their own seats, and it's explicit that Jimbo doesn't control elections, we do. *IF* a committee or Jimbo tried to just 'place' someone, as a decision? That final decision like any other of theirs can be brought before AppCom. If the AppCom tried to place someone, though? That's the one thing you can't really plan against. It's like asking what happens if the U.S. Army rolled onto Pennsylvania Avenue tomorrow for a military coup d'etat. In any system with a hierarchy there is always a hole eventually, either at the top or bottom. You can't avoid it generally.


 * On that note, something to consider I'd rolled in my head but didn't draft. How does the community in this system overturn the AppCom, if they went nuts or lost all faith? I'd say you get BOTH the ArbCom and the PolCom together in a special joint case, if something that stupid ever came up. The ArbCom side drafts any behavioral side of the Prop Decision, the PolCom the policy side, both sides vote together. I really can't see that happening, though, or reaching such a level of stupid. Can you?

Is this based on a certain countries government?


 * No, I copied the ArbCom of Today, and wrote this from scratch.

Please don't let this die; take ownership of this.
Thank you for the support and suggestions offered on this. I am still gone, but I wanted to leave this note. Everything I wrote above is basically all my thoughts on it. Don't let this die. Force it through. Bring it through. We have to have this to save WP's innards, long-term.

Take ownership of this and YOUR website. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rootology, don't expect or depend on anyone to ever take up your cause. It never happens. If you want this to happen, you have to be here too. Ikip (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts
Seems a good model. I echo Rootology above to not let this die, and I'm willing to play a small role in keeping it going. My thoughts and suggested amendment so far: perhaps make it clear that "Writes policy for itself" for committees excludes changing their remits? Ironholds (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, are we going to entertain the idea of an elected policy committee to draft or suggest new guidelines and policies? Ironholds (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain how the "power" is redistributed
I'm not clear on how these committees would curb the power of individuals and groups that allegedly already have it. Could the proposer give an example? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of problem
“There is a rapidly growing consensus that the use of our traditional "consensus" methods of decision making [are not working well] for anything related to Wikipedia project governance...”


 * I would like to see evidence of this consensus. The crop of links which appeared link to a variety of pages filled with discussion, but I don't see anything like agreement, and I see plenty of people arguing against various aspects.  That's not consensus.  In particular, several of the various proposals are written by the same handful of people.


 * I would also like to see some evidence of an actual, systemic, on-going problem. That is, significant number of instances where the encyclopedia isn't getting written/improved because we don't have one of these committees.  Not just someone unhappy.  In anything this large, there's always going to be a non-trivial number of unhappy people.  (I've been one of them.)  Most of it blows over in a week or two.  (Ditto.)


 * Lots of people find the unstructured nature of Wikipedia surprising, even unsettling, but that doesn't make it broken, just different. That fact that WP:RULES isn't like the US Constitution or the Magna Carta doesn't make it broken.


 * In short, apply the same principles we use to write the encyclopedia -- like WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:CITE -- to this proposal.


 * Right now, my take is that this is a solution in search of a problem to solve.


 * Respectfully submitted. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with DragonHawk. Ironically, under current rules, this proposal can only be adopted through consensus, so if it is adopted (which is unlikely), this would demonstrate that consensus does work and the proposal is not needed. (The reverse does not hold true; the proposal is more likely to fail because most believe it is a bad idea, not because consensus doesn't work.)  Sandstein   20:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the when flagged revs received 59% support, and yet was not implemented shows that for certain types of decisions consensus is not working, and at Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development there is a significant majority who agree. In some areas such as WP:RFA we only pretend to use consensus, when we really use a vote where the winning margin is decided after the fact by bureaucrats. For editorial decison I wholeheartedly agree that consensus works and is appropriate. I think this is a debate well worth having. Kevin (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Vote counting is meaningless in a consensus system. I think that's something a lot of people have trouble with.  They see "more than half said X" and then when X doesn't happen they think "OMG consensus system is broken".  It's not broken, just different.  Sorry if that offends your sense of democracy or something. • Flagged rev's: The message you link to clearly identifies that there were some concerns, and another proposal is in the works, so they're waiting on that.  Seems to me that the system is working fine. • RFA is like taxation: Everybody hates it, but nobody has a better idea.  See WP:PEREN#RFA. • ACPD#Scale: Again you're vote-counting.  Many people simply saying "Me too!" is not a good reason to do something.  I think there are some good points in that discussion, but not all of them on one side or the other.  I particularly find the comments regarding consensus within a WikiProject vs consensus project-wide intriguing, although I don't draw any conclusion at this point. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure my point made it through. My flagged revs example was to show where the consensus system stalled a proposal that 60% felt should go ahead. In my opinion that is a failure of the consensus model to achieve the appropriate outcome. My RFA example was to show that we already use methods other than consensus to make decisions, and was not a suggestion that we change RFA at all. My link to the scale discussion shows clearly that a majority feel that consensus does not scale, and I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way. Kevin (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A good example for which consensus has not been working is WP:FICT. Consensus doesn't seem to exist on the subject, and so it festers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that could be a good case study, so I've broken discussion on it out into a separate section: Please see . — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure my point made it through. :)  You point to that 60% at flagged revs as prima facie evidence that consensus doesn't work.  What's I'm saying is that just because a majority vote didn't lead to action, that doesn't mean consensus is broken.  You're taking it as a given that the majority vote outcome is always the correct course of action.  Same with ACPD#Scale: You see a majority as necessarily determining the "correct" outcome.  That's never been how Wikipedia worked, and many are just fine with that.  Democracy is not the only way to do things.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, I just disagree with it. Strongly. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ← Outdent ← Outdent ← Outdent ← Outdent ←

Well, at least now we're getting somewhere. :) I interpret your statement to mean that you disagree that "democracy is not the only [good] way to do things".  If I'm wrong, please correct me.  If I'm right, I'm interested in knowing: Why do you disagree?  It it because you feel democracy is somehow sacred (I used to feel the same, and still largely do)?  Or something else? — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I disagree with is your contention that the flagged revs example does not demonstrate a failure of consensus. It is an example of a minority using consensus to maintain status quo. I agree that democracy is not the only way to do things, but neither is consensus. I believe that decision making methods other than consensus become more appropriate as the scale of the decision becomes larger. Kevin (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the FlaggedRevs debate is a good example, although not for the reasons Kevin gives. The problem with the consensus model is the "me-too"-ism, as evidenced by that debate where large numbers of people (on both sides, but predominantly the opposing side) clearly hadn't read what was being proposed - namely just turning the software on, and not actually using it (a technical but not social change to Wikipedia if you will).  That is certainly what I found the most frustrating, and once a flawed concept like that takes hold people assume it to be true and "vote".  Now, arguably, if consensus were to be used, people should be happy if these flawed votes were discounted, yet when Jimbo does just that the world goes mad accusing him of overuling consensus.  I shall never forget reading an editor writing in the same sentence that we aren't a democracy, and that an 80% majority would be needed for such a change.  So the problem with consensus is simple - by and large, our processes are viewed as supermajority votes, not by our old-fashioned definition of consensus anyway.  We have two choices - accept the prospect of votes not consensus, or empower a body by voting for them to examine things in more detail and determine the outcome that is in the best interests of the encyclopedia.  I personally favour the latter at present. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This kind of problem will manifest itself no matter what method of decision making is used. There will always be those who do not properly inform themselves of the issues, or who do not understand all the issues. This could be partly solved by better framing the question under discussion. We typically discount misguided opinions at places like AfD or RfA, but for larger scale decisions I think we have to rely on accurate and understandable framing of the question under discussion, and then accept all votes at face value. I think we're looking at 2 aspects of the same issue. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Case study: WP:FICT
A good example for which consensus has not been working is WP:FICT. Consensus doesn't seem to exist on the subject, and so it festers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly grant that consensus hasn't created a new guideline at WP:FICT, despite much discussion. The question is, "Why?"  Is it because consensus doesn't scale, or is it because the guideline is just a bad idea, or what?  I honestly don't know, and would be interesting in hearing theories.  I'm not taking it as a given that "failure to produce a guideline" is a failure; it could be that WP:FICT shouldn't be a guideline.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The community is pretty evenly split, which allows fillibustering. That's killed a version or two.  Groups here a self selecting, so a lot of the people who work on it are the hardest core in both directions.  It's kinda hard to summarize, because there have been so many attempts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Absolutely, however failure to produce an outcome could well be construed as a failure. When a debate such as WP:FICT has gone on for so long with neither side gaining sufficient ground to call "consensus", then it would seem much more productive to have a means of breaking the deadlock, unless the desired outcome is to teach debating skills. Kevin (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on the inclusionist side, but I'd almost prefer any resolution, regardless of outcome. It looked like we have a compromise about 9 months ago or so, but some people still had fight in them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the latest FICT RfC (unless there's a newer one, you never know). Requests for comment/Notability and fiction - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is not actually a policy question, it's a content question: how much content on fiction should be in the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is relevant though, in that it is being used as an example of a need for a better decision making process to replace or supplement consensus. Having some means of breaking long standing deadlocks such as these would probably reduce the need for any content committees. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I motion we just give Phil Sandifer a blank check to write policy and be done with it. Nifboy (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't see that committees are the answer
I believe we already have all the institutional structure we need (too much if anything). I don't see the gain to be had from creating new committees. We do however need more robust means of decision making, based on a concept of "consensus" that doesn't require unanimious agreement. We need to be quite clear that in all discussions where there is unresolved disagreement, there are people who come along and adjudicate as to what the consensus (i.e. the decision) is. And decisions once made must be implemented until there is consensus to change them - people must not be allowed to disrupt that process. All this can be done with our present structures - basically admins decide on consensus (though I'd like to see that done with more dialogue in close cases), the community at large (particularly other admins) can review such decisions, and ArbCom exists as a final instance. People who disrupt the decision-making or implementation processes are again dealt with by admins, with the same possibilities of review. Basically I see all the required structure being in place - we must identify what goes wrong in the cases where it fails to work (usually I think it's a failure to react firmly to disruption as soon as it occurs), and keep updating our standards accordingly.--Kotniski (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins do not decided on consensus, except where it comes to the use of admin powers. For instance, in policy discussions, admins have no different role to any other editors. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo?
Other wikis are doing fine without a supreme leader. I know I'll sound sinister but what if Jimbo gets hit by a bus? Do we scramble to appoint some new Jimbo? Elect a new Jimbo? No, we'll just realize that there wasn't a need for a one-man ultimate authority. This proposal should just read: Jimbo has a fundamental role in Wikimedia Foundation but on the English Wikipedia, he's an ordinary citizen with the sysop flag. This means that he's welcome to apply for a seat on the Appeals Committee like anybody else. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Role of Jimbo
One thing is missing from the list of "what's broken that needs fixing": Jimbo's unique powers are lacking in legitimacy.

I propose a different way of formalising these: officially vest them in the Appeal Committee, and give them the power to delegate them to Jimbo (or indeed anyone else). Given the large amount of support he has in the community, I have no doubt they would be immediately delegated back to him. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)