QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 12th July 2009, 2:54am)
QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 11th July 2009, 9:43pm)
On the contrary, I think the idea of reforming Wikipedia governance is broadly popular, and I think that comes through in this RfC. People either think Wikipedia needs genuine reform, and the council is contrary to that purpose, or they think the council represents an actual step towards reform...very few people seem to think Wikipedia needs no reform.
What I see in that RfC is a small but noisy group of people who persistently interfere with every effort to reform Wikipedia by claiming to be in favor of reform, but always acting to block it when it appears it might happen. It's very obvious that they do not want reform, but don't want to appear opposed to it, and so they make sure that no reform occurs except on their own terms, which are (of course) that no reform takes place. This is blatantly obviously SlimVirgin's position, for example.
When you combine that with all the different groups of people who think Wikipedia needs reform, but disagree profoundly as to what direction that reform should take, you have a guaranteed recipe for maintaining the status quo.
Top down reform is impossible because there will always be a strong minority, if not majority, who will object to any proposal that they didn't personally have a chance to debate on for 6 months and then vote on.
Bottom up reform is impossible because you will never get 75% of editors to agree on anything.
At least Arbcom tried something different, and it was strangled before it ever drew a breath.
The 2009 Arbcom elections are likely to be quite amusing. Pre-order your popcorn and avoid the rush!