On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:51:21 +1100, "Stephen Bain"
<stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My reading of the conversation: Guy was wondering why
he hadn't heard
any answers from Danny in regard to fairly specific questions he had
asked about what he could or could not do to the page.
I'd just like to confirm that this was one of the two questions I
needed answered; the other was: what should we do in order to avoid
having OFFICEd articles in a state of perpetual stagnation, often at
the "wrong version". Talk pages of these articles often contain a lot
of debate, much of it focused on why we can't get any kind of answer
from OFFICE. Sometimes the answer is perfectly reasonable - Brad
needs to consider a issue, for example - other times, the answer is
"dunno". It's fine to reply with "sorry, we can't say", but
no reply
at all is very hard to deal with.
Matthew
suggested one reason would be that Danny doesn't want it on record
that the Foundation has said "yes you can add this to an article" or
similar statements, because the Foundation doesn't want to be
accountable for what editors do in that type of situation.
That sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory to me. Much more likely
that he has no easy answer and Foundation hasn't equipped him with a
set of usable guidelines. Not that Danny is stupid or lacking
initiative, but he is, I understand, very busy.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG