On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:48:05PM -0500, Renata St wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, the research committee still hasn't made any onwiki statement at a
> > relevant location that I can find. If this were a court case, RCom
> > would pretty much have lost by default and/or forfeit already.
> >
>
> As I said, analyze and nitpick things to death. Does any of that above *
> really* matter?
>
> It distresses me to see the community turned into this insane
> policy-enforcing power-hungry gang.
Heh, you're using the right argument in response to the wrong person. What can
I say, you're absolutely right. The community really needs to be more flexible.
Oddly, depite all criticism, apparently they're currently still faster on their
feet and more flexible than the foundation (or rcom, at least)
There's 3 ways in which I feel you can get away with murder on wikipedia and
still get a barnstar. ;-) [1]
These methods still work!
1: If it's in a policy, it's pre-approved. We're done here, let's go home and
get lemonade... But what if you don't know policy?
2: Well, you can just go talk with someone, ask, and maybe reach agreement
(consensus)... But what if you don't know anyone?
3: Well, just do what you think is right ...but/and if someone comes up and
goes "'ello 'ello 'ello, what's this 'ere then?" You should have your
answer ready on-wiki. ;-) ('ignore all rules')
I'm ok with people not knowing policy(1), I'm ok with people not quite grokking
consensus(2), and you know what? I'm worlds the biggest fan of
'do what ye will' (modulo 'An it harm no one') (3).
Now when we get to the 'An it harm no one' part; how are people going to figure
that out? Well, that's when they start asking questions. They're required to
assume good faith on your part, and -conversely- you're not even required to
answer their questions!
So far, you still haven't done anything wrong. It's all allowed!
Now, if you don't answer questions, that's perfectly ok, people will simply try
to puzzle things out on their own. If they decide that your actions are Mostly
Harmless, you're good, carry on.
Of course, if they can't figure it out (or think you are doing something bad)
someone might ask you to stop doing what you are doing. If you then stop doing
it, once again, you're in the clear.
Only if you continue after being asked to stop, or if you do something after
people have told you "don't do that" or "don't do it that way" ... ok, well,
then the community will really have to use a little bit of muscle to stop you.
And that's what happened here.
The Rcom can probably STILL solve this issue at almost any moment in time, by
simply going on wiki and actually either: Answering the questions asked of them
(3), reaching agreement on what to do next(2), or pointing to a policy that
says they can run banners(1).
I did take Jerome on-wiki on thursday/friday. This helped a bit :-) But not
enough, since the actual rcom weren't around for backup.
Personally, my rule of thumb is to give people 24 hours. Fair's fair: people
don't watch the wiki all day, they might live in a different time zone, etc.
Rcom have exceeded that limit and they still haven't posted on-wiki (which is
the place where the people are who actually have a say).
Well, ok, maybe Rcom decided to start weekend early and already went to the
pub? :-)
Nooo, wait, they actually posted on foundation-l more recently. ... Eh? Didn't
we all tell them to go talk to the actual wiki-folks A.S.A. effing P?
I'll be frank. Rcom has messed this one up simply by flailing around in circles
and failing to do the one. single. thing. they. needed. to. really. really.
do.
Rcom: "Do you expect us to die?"
Goldfinger: "No Mr. Rcom, we expect you to talk!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TmeBd9338
sincerely,
Kim "stirred, not shaken" Bruning
--
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
