On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 12:57, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Could you please explain which of the mails in this thread are problematic
> in your opinion? I think that I made a factual statement in the most
> neutral way.

The strong focus on voting is in itself, not neutral. Voting at this scale
cannot measure the needs of the wider movement. These plans affect hundreds
of thousands of editors. Making decisions based on the vote of a the few
hundred contributors who comment, would misrepresent the movement and lead
to populist decisions stemming from the strong status quo bias

The purpose of the consultations is to give constructive feedback to
positively influence the outcome. Effort-less votes would misunderstand the
purpose and only create disruption. That's not helpful to our cause. A
collaborative mindset is necessary to move forward with implementing the Medium
term plan

> Anders, your opinion is that the recommendations are „wonderful“. I want to
> tolerate your opinion. But do you also tolerate other opinions? Or do you
> think that opponents need a better „attitude“?

I don't see that Anders would have trouble "tolerating" the opposing
opinions. A "better tone and attitude" would mean to express our opinion in
less combative and more constructive ways. Maybe you meant to "Respect your
opinion", which implies a more positive judgement. Nuances can
differentiate between a civil and a tense atmosphere.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to