stevertigo wrote: > I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list. > > Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100 > posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just > appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the > opposition was sub-articulate, and whatever substantive criticism > there was was largely based in some assumed misconceptions about its > scope (Thomas). > Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you? (See your attitude to Cary Bass.) I seem to remember a thread with a very different feel. You had some support from Fred Bauder, who likes the idea of discussing dispute resolution. You had very definite opposition from me. You can call me sub-articulate all you like, but I don't think it will stick. > Anyway, we were talking about an open list for discussing dispute > resolution. Its scope will be broad, and its purpose will be to be > helpful. It will discuss particular disputes in general, conceptual, > and editorial terms, and facilitate immediate on-wiki dispute > resolution processes. It will also discuss dispute resolution concepts > in general, wherever that goes. > > And my point is that your broad brush means the second sentence would self-contradict, in a welter of meddling and advocacy. If that's the intended remit (everything up to and including the kitchen sink) then there was no misunderstanding at all about the scope.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
