Governance reform

Many proposals are in the works for governance reform. Growth of the projects has complicated their governance. Informed decisions on matters such as bans and requests for adminship are made more difficult by the fact that it is no longer possible for every member to know every other editor. Moreover, the sheer number of decisions to be made (deletion debates, policy discussions, etc.) has increased to the point where it is impossible for editors to participate in all the debates that may have an interest in.

Arguments over the existence of a problem[edit]

Some people are concerned that control is being unduly influenced by those who devote more time to participation in the metapedian aspects of the projects, rather than contributing to the mainspace. However, others have argued that it makes sense, and is beneficial, for decisions to be made by those who care enough about those metapedian aspects to put their time into them.

Another objection to the current system is that policies are almost impossible to change, since a proposal can be defeated whenever a significant chunk of opposition becomes actively involved in the debate. It is argued that many policy debates are won by whoever is willing to stay there and argue the longest. A counterargument is that it makes sense, and is beneficial, for decisions to be made by those who care enough to stay involved throughout.

Many users believe that the system works fine, very good policies are already in place, and they have resulted in excellent products such as Wikipedia. A counterargument is that much greater things could have been done with better policies, and that the users who continue to participate tend to favor the current policies because many of those who don't have left in dissatisfaction.

Specific proposals[edit]

Legislature[edit]

This proposal would have the community elect a body (e.g. 40 members elected in tranches) that would have power to make policy.

Proxy voting[edit]

Proxy voting allows each member to designate a member to vote on their behalf, if the member himself cannot participate. This has the advantage of efficiency in decisionmaking, in that a member need only find one trustworthy individual, rather than educate himself on a slate of potential candidates for a legislature. It would also allow for easily getting rid of a bad representative, as one could revoke his proxy at any time.

Good faith edits and BRD[edit]

Shift away from the proposal model to make policy changes primarily through good faith edits and the BRD cycle.

Status quo[edit]

Continue to use formal proposals to change policy.