John Plocher wrote: >> The last time centralised list management was mooted it >> was roundly rejected by the community. > > I wish you would stop foisting this piece of revisionist history off > on us as a rationale for not helping fix the problem. The "round > rejection" wasn't that centralized list management was suggested, but > that it was announced to the community in such a way as to give the > impression that it was a done deal, that a new policy had been decided > upon behind closed doors and the results were being quietly rolled out > without any attempt to get the list owners input and/or buy in.
The complaint then was that we'd acted in a high-handed way, and the complaint now seems to be that we suggested that the mechanism set up to deal with these sort of issues should be used, i.e. the OGB. Which approach do you wish us to take in future? > IMnsHO, there was nothing really wrong with the idea, but everything > went wrong with the timing and manner in which the idea was > socialized, announced and communicated. The disappointing thing is > that rather than using the experience as a learning opportunity on how > to better communicate such ideas, y'all seem to be simply throwing in > the towel and giving up... On the contrary, I said: "Then ask the OGB to step in, and give it their OK. We can then add you as a mod to the appropriate list." Which seemed entirely appropriate bearing in mind the events last time round. As I understand, the answer to that from the OGB is "Yes, go ahead", so we are now getting the issue sorted out. Can I take it from the above that you are now in favour of centralised list management, or is that still open for further discussion? -- Alan Burlison --
