Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previouslynon-referenced in the spec"References"]

[Colin Barrett]

On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:33 AM, Joe Andrieu wrote:

> Tantek, there is no governance for uF other than by cabal

IMO, that is the way it should be. You don't put new hires on your  
company's steering committee, and the House doesn't approve  
presidential appointments, the Senate does -- in fact, the US senate  
is an excellent example: older, cooler heads to offset the firey  
"voice of the people" the house is supposed to represent.

That said, I think there should be bit more visible superstructure  
around just who is in this "cabal". It seems to me like the Editors/ 
Authors of the various specs form the majority it of it, but perhaps  
that should be made a bit more apparent, and the "powers" of an editor  
(essentially, the ability to veto changes to the wiki, it seems)  
outlined a bit and some information about how to become an editor  
(AFIACT, make numerous, quality edits to the Wiki that the other  
editors approve of).

In summary: the people who have written the spec, the editors and  
authors, are the most knowledgeable about them, and should have a  
disproportionate amount of influence in what goes into the spec and  
what doesn't. I think one thing that may trip people up is that just  
because a wiki is used, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia style  
governance will (or should) be present.

One more thing: this isn't a list about discussing meta-topics (in  
theory). Maybe a new list should be created for the discussion of meta- 
issues (such as the additions of new lists), as some of us aren't  
interested in reading that.

-Colin