Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Procedure for changing this policy/Old proposal

The proposal being put forth for amendments has its roots in part of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy ratification vote. It is intended as an effort to maintain ongoing participation in rules development while maintaining an active and reasonably stable policy that can be applied even as amendments are being discussed. It reflects the idea that newcomers should have an opportunity to participate in decisions that were made before they joined, and that members should have the opportunity to change their votes as circumstances change.

Although this proposal is made in regards to the Arbitration Policy, it is conceivable that it could be generalized for other policies. Eclecticology 00:20, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

Seems rather unnecessary and legalistic - the ratification vote stated "The Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things", and I think it's reasonable that the arbitration cabal does just that. People will naturally change their vote (and are encouraged to do so) in either direction, as and when. If folks think the AC is abusing this, they can vote us out soon enough, or kick up a fuss with Jimbo, or just talk to us about it.

Regards applying it to policy in general - ick!! Wikipedia is not an experiment in participative democracy. Most policies are so uncontroversial that no discussion is even necessar. One worry is that our policy pages already frequently lag behind reality or leave important areas uncovered - a heavyweight vote for every change would make that worse, not better.

Perhaps it would help if I understood your motive for making this proposal? Is it intended as an anti-cabal defence? Or something else? Martin 22:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)