On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Thomas Dalton<[email protected]> wrote:
> Responses were rather mixed - there were different proposals > being bounced around. There weren't any "different proposals." Aside from suggestions taht dealt with the scope such a list would take, there was a brief suggestion for a separate announce list - one which simply posted what issues were present. > As I recall, a list to discuss general dispute resolution matters > and perhaps to draw attention to specific disputes has some support, That is correct. That is essentially the entire concept. But note also that the core of our dispute resolution is best codified with something like DBAD. So to make a habit of chastizing people simply for getting into specific issues on a list itself violates DBAD, and that is why Im reluctant to put hard boundaries on what can or cannot be discussed. If its dispute resolution related, we can discuss it. Obviously much will deal with simply pointing people to the right places on the wiki, helping filing WP:DRR (requests), and keeping things high-level, as you have suggested. > but I don't recall much support for a list where disputes would > actually be resolved (which I think was your original proposal). That actually wasn't my proposal to "resolve" disputes there. On the other hand, if a report to ANI or RFC receives attention that solves certain problems, then does that mean you would object to the usage of ANI or RFC to "resolve disputes?" I guess the point is that the distinctions you illustrate and so-called ambiguity issues you raise are unnecessary and argumentative. > I don't think the list can be created until it is agreed what it will > actually be for. Sure. That's why I proposed it in the first place. And as far as agreement, goes, I gauge our degree of disagreement at only about five percent. -Steven _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
