On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully > > refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to > > read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being > > blocked, but you still don't know why, when, or by whom. > > > > That's precisely the crux of the problem: office actions often aren't > properly explained and documented. No one who wasn't involved in the > original "office action" decision really knows why, when, or by whose > authority was the office action taken out. > > > Except as I then described, in fact the specifics are known - it was done at Sue's request, in mid-March, after she consulted with the GC and after Jimbo weighed in. Several other WMF staffers then commented about its status as an office action and their inability to publicly justify it. I understand why people will have a problem with that reply, it's just irritating to get a discussion prompt with vague allusions that you then have to go digging through in order to understand what the heck is going on :-P _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
