On 14 March 2016 at 22:12, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote: > On 16-03-14 05:01 PM, Vi to wrote: >> Ignoring a wide community >> consensus is *always* a mistake. > > It is. I never advocated otherwise. > > That old RfC, however, does not show a wide community consensus, let > alone a consensus of the actually impacted community. > > -- Coren / Marc
You could walk in the shoes of others, as Jimbo advocates, and you could create an RFC to show whether users prefer it, rather than putting the burden of proof onto a community that has already established what it wanted. In fact, if you are creating the RFC then you could make it jump through whatever hoops you would like to see to "prove" whatever it is you think remains unproven, rather than expecting some mug of a volunteer to guess what it is that might satisfy your needs. As for the reasoning that no community RFC is ever representative of users, as users without an account never voted, this seems a basic logical fallacy. There is no "us and them" with readers/viewers, as all volunteers who happen to have an account are 100% readers and viewers. Thanks Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
