If I were really wanting to stir stuff up, I'd say that the entire RFC was invalid because there was one option for supporting the proposal and two for opposing it. It should have been a clearer yes or no, especially since the third section only appeared to the end/after the RfC was advertised. But, I think that Peter's suggestion to re-examine it in a year is a good one. Then we can all see if this wording actually works, or not.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm. There were 77 comments in support, and 68 comments in opposition, > but it was closed as supporting the global bans policy in its current > form. Interesting. > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, ENWP Pine <deyntest...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > This RFC has previously been discussed on this list. The RFC is now > closed. > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_bans > > > > Pine > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > -- Adrian Raddatz, R.C.N. Naval Cadet Royal Military College Saint-Jean Government of Canada _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
