So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ... 2009/11/26 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> > (Actually, I have a couple of > possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their > implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: ... Asking such question is not constructive, as well as it is aggressive if you take in count that I am sharing my ideas even I don't think that they will have a lot of chances for success. It is very different from asking the same question someone who use it as an argument in discussions; as well as it is very different if such question comes from the side of foundation-l participant who is new and who doesn't know behavior of other participants. Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a limit. Probably, it won't be a big deal for me to pass that limit and to go to moderation, but I agreed that some measures should be imposed on the list and that moderators should articulate them. Also, I think that those measures are reasonable and I want to follow them. That means that I don't want to send more than one email per day. As I wrote an email today and I am wasting another on this discussion, that means that I will give to the list the next constructive input the day after tomorrow. (I was preparing email for tomorrow for the topic which I previously started.) So, in fact, with this question you are blocking constructive discussion at this list. Your question leads to a meta-discussion about my personality and my motives, which is a light version of ad hominem attack. This kind of behavior is aggressive. Besides that, it leads into dead end because I already concluded that I don't want to share those my ideas here and now exactly because of reason which I gave; which means that your question has another not constructive feature. (Not to talk that your question wastes my time, as well as time of those who read our two emails.) If I have some very good idea (or, at least, the idea for which I think that it is [very] good) how to remove the unnecessary bureaucracy (which shouldn't be confused with necessary bureaucracy), I would give it, of course. However, during writing previous email, I've got some particular ideas related to some of the negative trends. Unfortunately, those ideas can't be implemented because of bureaucracy (or, at least, I think so). Which means that they are not worth of spending time in explaining them (one email of such length per idea; maybe even some longer discussion about some of them) now and here. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This is Andrew Dalby's quote, not mine. > I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim > that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp > has around ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (According to > statistics.