Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Jul 11, 2008, at 01:07, Stephen Lau wrote: >> Who decides they are "acceptable"? > > In the previous posting you made, you did. I was reflecting that. Touché. Fair enough. I still believe neither you nor I should make that call though. >> The Website Community Group does. You and I don't get to decide >> whether they are acceptable or not. >> Until the Website CG reviews them, they don't get to be there. > > A good solution if all that matters is process, a bad one for seeking > a compromise that helps people co-operate. I'd suggest we consider > this discussion to be that review. > Disagree. We sought a compromise last time, which was to leave the content up and develop a process to work together to publish these sorts of changes. We all agreed last time that that was appropriate. What's the point of a process if you don't follow it? Co-operation is a two way street.
cheers, steve -- stephen lau | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.whacked.net _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
