On 12/01/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 12/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No. There are a dozen apparently simple hopes that could be put up that would be near imposible to jump through.
Your endlessly alluding to things is tedious to the extreme. Kindly put your money where your mouth is and tell us, why don't you?
The foundation would be taking quite a risk by telling arbcom no but they could always state:
Move evidence of community consensus is need There are still unanswered question (to start with the ones they didn't ask) The foundation feels it needs to take soundings from other/more groups(any idea how long it would take to get a comment from every single project?) Arbcom haven't provided enough detail as to how the changes should be made More effort needs to be made to explain the issues to the community Arbcom failed to consider all the possibilities Arbcom need to do more to justify the form their consultation has taken. Then we have timing: The foundation is unable to give the matter the consideration it needs until the upcoming elections have been completed The foundation is unable to give the matter the consideration it needs until the newly elected memebers have settled in. The foundation wishes to wait until after the next arbcom elections so as to be able to consider the views of the new arbcom members The foundation is unable to give the matter the consideration it needs until the audit/move/whatever has been completed The foundation has passed instructions along to the devs and the changes will be made once higher priority code fixes have been made.
Will that do to start with?