Stevertigo wrote:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu>
wrote:
But I haven't been able to edit the talk page
yet.
It may change further depending on JiL's responses
to attempts to convince him to choose a new name
volunatarily;
but I haven't been able to read his responses yet.)
What do his responses have to do with your opinion on
the merits of the name? I would agree with those who
caution that the issue should be separate from
behaviour. Tim pointed this particularly important
bug out to me. Part of maintaining a consistent
policy is abstaining from the sideissues -- Just vote
on the merits of the name, dagummit thats it.
If JiL asks for a change of name, then you've won. You have been arguing
all along that the name should be changed to something more appropriate,
and that's exactly what will occur if JiL gives in. The only difference
is that it won't be controversial, which as far as I'm concerned is a
good thing.
The real problem issue I see is with the tacit
deferment of action on these matters to developers--
like Tim, who's mostly used his conversion script for
non-inflammatory changes, and seems a little tender
about just getting it over with. This shouldnt be a
big deal -- ideally we want people to agree to a
change, but barring that, its a conflict between the
consensus and the ego of one person. Are sysops *not
to enforce a nay vote on a username, always defering
to a developer? This puts developers in a bind,
because in order for them to make a decision they seem
to think they need to get involved. They dont-- they
just need to do the bidding of the community.
I'm obliged by the current system to make a judgement on the state of
the argument. That's not always easy but as far as I'm concerned, that's
where my obligation stops. Also, I'll always act on any declaration
from Jimbo.
I can also stall. A suggestion for a compromise has been made, and I'm
happy to wait until JiL has a chance to accept or reject it. If you're
not happy with this, I suggest you either ask Jimbo to make a
declaration, or try to convince one of the other developers to use my
script (the details of which are now public).
Of course, as stalling goes, you're the expert. If you hadn't set up
that vote, the discussion would probably be over by now. Votes require
voting periods. Toby Bartels suggested one week.
-- Tim Starling.