On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:58 PM, stevertigo<stv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Geoffrey Plourde<geo.p...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Well, if the list is for general dispute resolution technique, it could be >> valuable to all projects. > > Its a very simple idea, and one which sort of fills a role that > wikien-l played for years, and for which there are several disjointed > on-wiki portals for doing certain things. For a long time I myself > stated that handling things on-list was inferior to doing things > on-wiki, and thus I agree with this proposals critics to some degree. > But in fact on-wiki dispute resolution is scattered, disjointed, and > in need of upgrades that integrate its disjointed and constituent > components into a better working machine. > > The only thing controversial about it is that I am the one proposing > it, and I don't really even understand why that in and of itself > should be particularly problematic, if people can simply deal with the > concept without basing their objection in privately made criticisms > and characterizations. > > -Steven > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >
I don't care who's proposing it, to be honest. My issue is that this thread does not belong on foundation-l, which others seem to agree since I first said so some 14 posts ago. Take it back to wikien-l, /please/. -Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
