2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
and
there
we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than
appliances.
:-)
That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of
"broke"
and "fix".
Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"
Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7 years ago. You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a "convention" is not a "system."
-Stevertigo
It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended to solve.
Content disputes? is there a reason why we would want people to discuss content disputes off-wiki? Seems to me one of the main allegations we hear at the Arbitration Committee is excess off-wiki communication related to content.
Behaviour disputes? How will a mailing list address these better than current processes? (Note, I'm not a big fan of RFCs, but I would like to hear a rationale about why mailing lists are better.) What if the person(s) whose behaviour is the subject of the mailing list thread chooses not to join the mailing list?
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
Just some thoughts.
Risker
It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it.
Fred