No, we changed that, remember? https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy
Am 11.12.2017 3:43 nachm. schrieb "Milos Rancic" <[email protected]>: > Oliver, I do not agree with your proposal and it's already doomed, as our > present system for making decisions is strict consensus. > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If we cannot agree on committee etiquette, i.e. rules about interaction >> which respects human dignity, we will not succeed in setting up rules about >> anything else either. >> >> I propose the following rule: >> >> - No flaming! (i.e. no ad hominem attacks, and no profanity) >> - Perpetrators who repeat the offense after being reprimanded will be >> blocked for one month. >> >> Feel free to discuss, add and/or amend. I still think we have to start >> somewhere to get our interaction to an acceptable level again. There are >> some widely agreed-upon netiquette standards out there (e.g. [1]-[3]; the >> slide inserted below is from [4]). I would have hoped that we don't need >> such rules but frequent flare-ups over the years have finally convinced me >> otherwise. >> >> I herewith *ask for votes on my proposed rule* within the usual 7-day >> deadline. Should discussion lead to additions or amendments (like including >> more detailed rules from the examples I listed below), the deadline will be >> postponed accordingly. >> >> Fwiw, >> Oliver >> >> [1] https://lifehacker.com/5473859/basic-etiquette-for-email- >> lists-and-forums >> [2] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7-netiquette-guidelines-writing >> -emails-forum-posts/ (esp. no.7) >> [3] https://www.simplehelp.net/2006/08/14/how-to-be-polite-while >> -youre-online-practicing-good-netiquette/ >> [4] http://images.slideplayer.com/47/11762279/slides/slide_3.jpg >> >> >> On 11-Dec-17 12:21, Milos Rancic wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I support Michael's call to stop offensive rants. And to be precise: Miloš, >> I perceive your posts and attitude to be highly disruptive (and that is not >> just my personal opinion but based on the standards of committee etiquette >> of several other non-profit organisations I'm familiar with) - it is >> impossible to work together in the face of such accusations and language. >> Please change and interact with us in a civil way. If you cannot do that, I >> support Michael's suggestion to reconsider your participation here. >> >> I see this kind of emails useless. I've already said I will do the >> same whenever provoked and I've already said what you should do to >> "reconsider" my position here. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing >> [email protected]https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.http://www.avg.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
