On 29/06/11 15:59, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
Hi Tom,
Asking us to block everybody for six months so a vote could be rigged
would clearly be unreasonable and would be ignored.
Where do I find the sysadmin policy for evaluating whether a blocking request
is considered „unreasonable“?
There isn't one. I'm not entirely sure what it would say if it existed
as it is hard to write such things down in concrete terms as it is by
definition a very subjective judgement.
I have been repeatedly told that making the voting right dependent upon the
edit right is not a problem and that the CT do not need to be fixed, because
the sysadmin team will always be reasonable. At the same time, the same people
tell me that it is entirely reasonable to block my edit right and to thus
remove my voting right. I see a contradiction here.
I (and several others) have explained the problem again and again.
My problem is that the CTs seem, to me, to be making a reasonable effort
to describe a workable way to determine who is an active contributor and
all I've seen in response is ever more implausible scenarios which
involve some large number of people collaborating maliciously over a
long period of time to somehow subvert that definition.
If you have a better way of defining "active contributor" that is
workable then please tell us what it is.
I once made a constructive proposal for one potential way to fix the problem,
which was met both with well-grounded criticism and with personal attacks.
Hardly anyone of the people who criticised my suggestion have made any efforts
to seriously work towards alternative solutions to the problem, and those who
did were themselves ignored.
What exactly was this constructive proposal?
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
