acadec scores policy:

motivation:  irish catholic guilt.  i personally don't like to do things without some sort of blessing out of fear that i'll piss someone off.  this is also based in a large part off of debian's documents describing how they solve the same problems we have.

we're here to address two problems:
there was no way to get a consensus
there was no way to show leadership

how will consensus be done:

1. an editor that wants to change how we do things comes up with a change and on the page puts a {{disc}} template.
2. users and editors who read the site discuss to come up with a specific set of questions to be asked.
3. once the person who raised the question is satisfied with the options offered the person asks the pm to put the {{vote}} template in
4. the pm then contacts all the editors using off-wiki means to tell them to vote for or against it.
5. once a quorum is reached the person who called the {{disc}} will then execute the decision or the PM will ask someone to execute it.
6. A table will be maintained of all completed {{vote}}s at adsic:todo and will show who is assigned to carry out something and appropriate status things
7. the pm will maintain the table and is tasked with making sure everything gets done.  

what are these roles?
project manager: the pm  maintains the todo list and assigns tasks to editors or himself.  also in charge of notifying the editors when there is a vote.
editors:  people who decide they want a say in how things are done.  they all are called to vote and are willing to execute a project if asked.  in order to raise a vote you must be an editor (you can't ask people to work if you're not willing to work  yourself.  n.b. that I fully expect that most people calling votes will be doing what they request).  all these duties are volunteer and added on top of the primary mission of the site (collect acadec scores).