79:(1) They would be able to draft proposed policies and guidelines at the request of the Arbitration Committee, the legal office of wikimedia, the Wikimedia Foundation itself, Jimbo or any other parties of the foundation, and, conceivably, by the editors of wikipedia, possibly through a discussion which has had a consensus of editors agree that such a proposal would go forward.
31:
88:
In all of these cases, however, it almost certainly be the case that any individuals who would be involved in activing writing or creating a new proposal would be expected to recuse themselves from actively taking part in the discussion of whether to approve a new proposal or not. Such recusal would
97:
If and when a new policy or guideline is created, that policy or guideline would be subject to review and changes, using substantially the same procedure used in the creation of the new policy or guideline. The process to be used here could be substantially the same as that used by the
Arbitration
93:
None of these functions would be exclusive to the members of the committee, however. The wikipedia community would be encouraged to take part in the discussion at all points by the use of a number of pages relating to any extant proposal, using basically the same arrangement currently used by the
74:
It is proposed that a somewhat large number of editors, perhaps in the range of thirty to fifty, be selected through some process, possibly election, to fill positions in a policy committee. This committee would exist to carry out certain specific functions.
85:(3) It would have the capacity to propose to the community new policies or guidelines, based on the initiative of the members of the committee itself, should they see a clear and immediate need for such a new policy or guideline.
82:(2) At least initially, they would have the remit of reviewing existing policies, and possibly guidelines, to determine the best and most comprehensible way of phrasing them, and possibly consolidate them in fewer pages.
45:
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the
46:
122:
68:
17:
89:
also allow those "drafters" the option of further refining the language of a proposal should it be found to need such.
38:
30:
99:
107:
103:
116:
67:
This is a proposal for a specific form in which the suggested
25:
59:
37:
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
8:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Governance reform
29:
100:clarifications of prior rulings
1:
139:
94:Arbitration Committee.
123:Inactive project pages
104:enforcement requests
98:Committee regarding
71:might be developed.
60:edit this proposal
69:governance reform
54:
53:
130:
50:
33:
26:
138:
137:
133:
132:
131:
129:
128:
127:
113:
112:
44:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
136:
134:
126:
125:
115:
114:
108:clarifications
91:
90:
86:
83:
80:
65:
64:
52:
51:
43:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
135:
124:
121:
120:
118:
111:
109:
105:
101:
95:
87:
84:
81:
78:
77:
76:
72:
70:
63:
61:
56:
55:
48:
42:
40:
35:
32:
28:
27:
19:
96:
92:
73:
66:
57:
47:village pump
36:
41:reference.
39:historical
117:Category
58:Please
16:<
106:and
119::
110:.
102:,
62:!
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
