I have explained my views on the plan at length on this mailing list and
the wiki. I have no intention of repeating myself now.
On Sep 30, 2012 4:16 PM, "Doug Weller" wrote:
>
> Katie's right. I really have no idea what the main issues are here
> about the plan.
> Doug
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at
Katie's right. I really have no idea what the main issues are here
about the plan.
Doug
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Katie Chan wrote:
> Oh FFS. Can everyone please talk about the issues, in this case the plan
> itself, rather than people? If you (still) have problems with the content of
> th
Oh FFS. Can everyone please talk about the issues, in this case the plan
itself, rather than people? If you (still) have problems with the
content of the plan, then list those issues and discuss it. We don't
need a dozen emails back and forth arguing whether the existing changes
constitute a "r
Where did I mention thought? I neither know nor care how much Jon thought
about it. He didn't fix the fundamental problems and just fiddled with the
details. That is not a rewrite.
On Sep 30, 2012 3:56 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
> On 30 September 2012 15:55, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 20
On 30 September 2012 15:55, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2012 3:26 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>> On 30 September 2012 13:23, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> > A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail,
>> > which is
>> > all you made.
>> You're claiming to measure thought
On Sep 30, 2012 3:26 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>
> On 30 September 2012 13:23, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail,
which is
> > all you made.
>
>
> You're claiming to measure thought by text diffs.
Please respond to what I say, not some
On 30 September 2012 13:23, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail, which is
> all you made.
You're claiming to measure thought by text diffs. This has a certain
surface plausibility, but insisting on it when you've been told "no,
that's not a
A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail, which
is all you made.
On Sep 30, 2012 1:07 PM, "Jon Davies" wrote:
> I think that would depend on how you define re-writes Tom. They felt like
> re-writes and stuff changed.
> I Incorporated a lot of people's suggestions and tri
I think that would depend on how you define re-writes Tom. They felt like
re-writes and stuff changed.
I Incorporated a lot of people's suggestions and tried to find consensus.
I listened a lot and acted.
You are being unfair.
Jon
On 30 September 2012 12:50, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On Sep 30, 20
On Sep 30, 2012 11:25 AM, "Jon Davies" wrote:
> There is a terrible tendency in planning to 'never quite get there' ,
waiting for perfection. We have been a bit prone to that. This plan went
through four re-writes over about the same number of months. It is common
sense and achievable in my view.
We did discuss it in Wahsington and decided to leave it aside while we
worked on the plan for 2013.
I am going to speak honestly here. I wondered if we would ever get a plan,
given how many different ideas and views there were about what should be in
it, and what structure it should take.
My stra
I disagree that it is in fairly good shape and would welcome an opportunity
for further discussion. A bad long-term plan can be worse than no plan.
On Sep 28, 2012 11:01 PM, "Andrew Turvey"
wrote:
> I appreciate that recent events have overtaken things to an extent but I
> wondered what the statu
I appreciate that recent events have overtaken things to an extent but I
wondered what the status is with
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Five_Year_Plan? On the page ist says "This
version will be discussed at a special board meeting to be held during
Wikimania in Washington" - did that happen?
13 matches
Mail list logo
