Looking ahead to recommendations: who has credibility/authority to move them forward?

Randomran - these are a good list of areas to work on. I would add one category that may overlap with #1,4,5 somewhat but has a slightly different orientation that being small efforts within the community of contributors to create new norms of engagement. Here is the link to a post I just added to the quality TF (which as you note is wrestling with some of the same questions) t link:Thread:Talk:Task force/Improve Wikipedia's Quality Task Force/Communal enabling of quality/BarryN

--BarryN 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

BarryN18:23, 8 December 2009

Barry, I think that's an interesting idea. I figured that kind of thing would come up in "improved decision making and dispute resolution" -- tools like facilitation, and new guidelines that prevent it from just turning into "last person standing wins".

I think even FloNight wanted to move away from talking about "governance" and talking more about "organizational structure", so I think that what you're talking about could come up there.

Good to know you're seeing some of the same things. Hopefully through dialog we can make these ideas more feasible and effective.

Randomran19:25, 8 December 2009