<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3>In a message dated 04/06/03 18:14:49 GMT Daylight Time, fredbaud@ctelco.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Good work, but that still doesn't give you the final word.<BR>
<BR>
Fred<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
So who decides?<BR>
I assumed there was intended to be some sort of consensus, as when the present policy was agreed by all who participated. At present, the lineup appears to be a few people who, <I>pace </I>Vicki, do not make significant contribution to the fauna articles, whereas Kingturtle, Tannin, Steve Nova and myself are fairly happy with the present situation. This hardly seems a clear mandate for changing the current policy.<BR>
<BR>
Personally, I think it will be a sad day if style triumphs over substance, and I can't help thinking we could all be better occupied creating and improving articles instead of revisiting a previously agreed policy, with the inevitable acrimony that tends to creep in.<BR>
<BR>
There are huge numbers of American bird species that have no articles at all. Wouldn't it be better to write some instead of wasting time on the umpteenth regurgitation of this topic?<BR>
<BR>
Jim</FONT></HTML>