On 28 September 2010 23:37, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote. The majority support > Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by > those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller > for the difficult discussion he has made. It is impossible to make > everyone happy sometimes. >
"Difficult discussion" seems like an appropriate Freudian slip, though it's probably fairer to thank Jimbo for that. Yes, it's well established that decisions aren't based on votes, which is why there's been such a hostile reaction to the forcing of a majority poll. And remember this isn't about "quashing" pending changes, it's about whether it should be left enabled in its current state. Many very experienced users, including those who were heavily involved in the trial and support pending changes, have raised serious concerns about the usability and effectiveness. There must be some validity to those, or why is the Foundation ploughing more time and resources into further development? Of course one problem with a strictly numerical poll like this, is that those concerns carry as much weight as a plain "keep" vote with no rationale. Pete / the wub _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l