Yes the pedia is somewhat ossified and change in many areas is difficult to
achieve. You only have to look at the various attempts to reform RFA to see
that.
Of course there are many possible changes that fail because they only have
minority support, and while it might be frustrating for the minor
> People should [stop] making negative insinuations about the majority or
claims
> of
> mythical idiots that "oppose nearly any sensible idea". Perhaps if you
> have
> proposed or supported a change that has not been implemented it was just
> a
> poor idea.
Yes, we should assume good faith.
Fred
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:04 AM, MuZemike wrote:
>
> Other proposals get so bogged down in endless stalemate and
> filibustering (like with Pending Changes), nothing ever gets done or
> moves forward. That's where the "consensus-based model" fails miserably.
Consensus is in a perpetual struggle
On 09/17/11 6:04 PM, MuZemike wrote:
> I think that certainly does happen, mainly because some don't like
> change. Many RfCs and proposals contain oppose reasons such as "solution
> in search of a problem" or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Other than
> what Alan mentioned, this has also applie
On 09/17/11 11:48 PM, Ev. Jorgen. wrote:
> People should making negative insinuations about the majority or claims of
> mythical idiots that "oppose nearly any sensible idea". Perhaps if you have
> proposed or supported a change that has not been implemented it was just a
> poor idea.
Maybe they a
