On 08/22/2014 01:54 AM, rupert THURNER wrote: > is the conflict not only triggered by a deliverable which was not good > enough?
Part of the difficulty of that statement is that the very /definition/ of "good enough" will necessarily vary from individual to individual, with a non-zero segment of editors defining it as "absolutely perfect and matching /my/ requirements exactly" (and another, just as large segment, calling for "any improvement to X is a gain"). Regardless of one's opinions on the "power dynamics" of the situation, or on how to best serve the short- and long-term needs of the community, it seems to me evident that you cannot allow any one segment of the community what amounts to veto power to any attempts at improvement. So the difficulty becomes simply one of finding a way to adjucate. It seems to me that *any* movement in that direction is an improvement, so long as it does not devolve in a simple game of numbers. It needs informed opinion, not popularity polls. -- Marc _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>