On 22 August 2014 14:42, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote: > 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").
Just recently I had someone seriously claim "bah, if Flow doesn't include [obscure feature I like] it won't be fit for purpose" in all seriousness. > 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. I think it's indisputably clear that, no matter the level of and efforts toward consultation, people will loudly claim it wasn't enough. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>