On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:55 AM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your logic here is broken. There are certainly times to have widely > advertised discussions, but doing so is not free: they often require > creating and deploying banners (with an associated increased risk of > banner blindness), related mailing list posts, time taken to draft and > re-draft proposals, and, of course, the time taken by members of the > community to discuss and re-discuss how best to move forward. Time is > precious, especially volunteer time, so we should make every effort to > ensure that when we ask people to donate theirs to a global discussion, we > don't do so lightly. Yes, I agree. Our discussions are important, but they are not free in terms of our collective time. Let's take this particular thread as an example -- it's some 30 messages. Say it takes 15 minutes to read all of them, and 500 subscribers have done so. That's 125 person-hours reading this single thread alone -- or 15 people for an entire 8 hour workday. 15 very experienced Wikimedians spending a day can get a lot done :) I don't think this particularly resolution warranted community consultation; if I did, I would have pushed for it. The issue of how to go ahead with BLPs in general certainly does, though -- that's the point I was trying to make. > As for these theoretical objections, if _you_ or anyone else objects to > this amendment, I'd certainly be interested to read why. Seconded. cheers, Phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
