CZ:Managing Editor/2011/003 - Minimum of bureaucracy: Difference between revisions
imported>Daniel Mietchen |
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (sect) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Which mechanisms do we have in place that help determine the minimum of bureaucracy appropriate to a given task? In any case, strengthening them seems like a good idea. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | Which mechanisms do we have in place that help determine the minimum of bureaucracy appropriate to a given task? In any case, strengthening them seems like a good idea. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
:A related problem is that if we have large numbers of policy documents, being aware of their content is time-consuming even if all relevant documents are easily found. Yet we do not have good mechanisms for identifying relevant pieces of policy. I think having some hierarchical set of links from the relevant phrases in the Charter to subordinate policy documents would be a more effective way than lists (or even categories) of motions passed or rejected etc. by the official bodies, no matter how elaborate the respective naming scheme for the individual policy decisions. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Formal restatement of problem == | == Formal restatement of problem == | ||
| Line 30: | Line 32: | ||
== Decision == | == Decision == | ||
== Post-decision comments == | |||
== Categories == | |||
[[Category:Managing Editor/Pending decisions]] | [[Category:Managing Editor/Pending decisions]] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:44, 2 May 2011
Statement of problem
Please be brief and specific in your request (polar questions are best) and add relevant links if available. Please state a time frame in which you expect a decision.
Having a minimum of bureaucracy is desirable from at least three perspectives:
- It saves time that could be used instead to make contributions more central to the project's mission.
- It reduces the probability of pointless arguments and the emotional payload that comes with them, especially in a virtual environment in which very few participants know each other personally.
- Given that time is precious for most of the participants in the project, and experts in particular, taking away compulsory chunks of it has to be limited to well-justified conditions.
Which mechanisms do we have in place that help determine the minimum of bureaucracy appropriate to a given task? In any case, strengthening them seems like a good idea. --Daniel Mietchen 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- A related problem is that if we have large numbers of policy documents, being aware of their content is time-consuming even if all relevant documents are easily found. Yet we do not have good mechanisms for identifying relevant pieces of policy. I think having some hierarchical set of links from the relevant phrases in the Charter to subordinate policy documents would be a more effective way than lists (or even categories) of motions passed or rejected etc. by the official bodies, no matter how elaborate the respective naming scheme for the individual policy decisions. --Daniel Mietchen 21:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Formal restatement of problem
This section defines the section structure of the decision.
Existing applicable policy
Charter
- Article 24: The Citizendium shall be devoted to transparent and fair governance with a minimum of bureaucracy.
Decisions by the governing bodies
Auxiliary policy
Draft decision
The text below is what I plan to decide in this case. Feel free to edit the text if you think this improves it. If your edits require discussion, please use the dedicated section below. Editing and discussion in this "Draft decision" section shall stop 24h after my last edit to it.'
Discussion of Draft decision
When reading or editing this section, please keep in mind that the current version of the draft decision might be different from the one referred to by previous commenters.