[WikiEN-l] Office actions

[Parker Peters]

> On 12/15/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 15/12/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > > > > On 14/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I suspect in many circumstances Danny will not be able to
> respond
> > to
> > > > > > such questions, since he doesn't want an official decision of
> the
> > > > > > Foundation on record.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought this project was founded on accountability.
> > > >
> > > > Editors are accountable for their own actions.
> > > >
> > > > The Foundation rightly does not want to be accountable for other
> > > > people's actions.
> > >
> > > I have no idea where you got the idea that I was asking the Foundation
> > > to be responsible for other people's actions. I'll quote you again the
> > > text (quoted above) that I was replying to:
> > >
> > > "Danny... doesn't want an official decision of the Foundation on
> > record."
> > >
> > > In this case, it was an "office action", which appears to generally
> > > equate to "putting stuff in the memory hole".
> > >
> > > Is it Foundation policy to hide official decisions of the Foundation?
> > > Or is it Danny policy? Either way, it appears that the management of
> > > this project is asymptotically approaching that of the Open[sic]
> > > Directory Project.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Earle Martin
> >
> >
> > Given that the risk of violating an Office action is Danny having you
> > banned/desysopped/draped in sackcloth and ashes, I think that the
> > boundaries
> > of Office actions need to be spelled out pretty clearly. Hiding them is
> > not
> > good for the project.
> >
> > Parker
> > ____


>On 12/15/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:Yes. We all know
what happened to Erik Moeller.
>
>And now let's not speak of that incident ever again.

James,

to "not speak of something again" isn't helpful either. Right or wrong,
eventually cleared up or not, that incident seems entirely relevant to the
questions being asked today, because another admin is trying - in very good
faith - to get the answers he needs so that he doesn't step on the toes of
OFFICE.

If those answers aren't provided, if OFFICE isn't willing to tell an
administrator what he needs to know, or even to give him a "well we can't
say 100% but we know you are acting in good faith so if we have to undo
something you do, no hard feelings/punishment will be coming your way", then
we've got a pretty big problem on our hands.

Parker