Parker Peters wrote:
On 12/15/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 15/12/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/15/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 14/12/06, Matthew Brown morven@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.
Given the number of people who don't understand or don't care that what happens on Wikipedia can have real-world implications, a suitable degree of "HERE BE DRAGONS" /is/ needed.