CZ:Charter drafting committee/Position statements/Peter Schmitt: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Of course, the main structures and processes have also to be installed and defined, however, they should only have the form of (firm) guidelines and avoid the inclusion of detailed procedures because their implementation (which are to be judged against the basic principles of the charter) will have to be adaptable according to future developments and experiences.
Among the topics for which such guidelines are needed are, of course:
Editors/experts, authors, readers/users, approval,
and how decisions are made and enforced (constables).
When drafting the charter the experiences since the start of CZ will have to be compared to and combined with the fresh observations obtained by those who have joined only recently.
(Changes to the originally formulated "preliminary charter" must not be taboo, but should be carefully reasoned.)
Some issues will be inherently difficult to deal with, among them the "neutrality" question, and solving the conflict between cooperation and the fact that expert knowledge cannot be decided by majority. Another controversial issue are articles on "fringe" topics. Being rather an inclusionist, I think that they should be included: If one likes them or hates them, the topics exist and often influence even a large number of people, and thus have to be presented in an adequate way (even if this is difficult).
imported>Peter Schmitt m (missing word) |
imported>Peter Schmitt (controversial topics) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
among them the "neutrality" question, and solving the conflict between cooperation | among them the "neutrality" question, and solving the conflict between cooperation | ||
and the fact that expert knowledge cannot be decided by majority. | and the fact that expert knowledge cannot be decided by majority. | ||
Another controversial issue are articles on "fringe" topics. | |||
Being rather an inclusionist, I think that they should be included: | |||
If one likes them or hates them, the topics exist and often influence | |||
even a large number of people, and thus have to be presented | |||
in an adequate way (even if this is difficult). | |||
Latest revision as of 17:15, 4 October 2009
Of course, the main structures and processes have also to be installed and defined, however, they should only have the form of (firm) guidelines and avoid the inclusion of detailed procedures because their implementation (which are to be judged against the basic principles of the charter) will have to be adaptable according to future developments and experiences.
Among the topics for which such guidelines are needed are, of course:
Editors/experts, authors, readers/users, approval,
and how decisions are made and enforced (constables).
When drafting the charter the experiences since the start of CZ will have to be compared to and combined with the fresh observations obtained by those who have joined only recently.
(Changes to the originally formulated "preliminary charter" must not be taboo, but should be carefully reasoned.)
Some issues will be inherently difficult to deal with, among them the "neutrality" question, and solving the conflict between cooperation and the fact that expert knowledge cannot be decided by majority. Another controversial issue are articles on "fringe" topics. Being rather an inclusionist, I think that they should be included: If one likes them or hates them, the topics exist and often influence even a large number of people, and thus have to be presented in an adequate way (even if this is difficult).