On 22/02/2008, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I honestly don't see how you can compare
these cases. One is an
editorial decision of no real significance which we can compromise on
to be polite with no net cost to the quality of the finished product;
A compromise is when each side gets some, but not all, of what it
wants.
As here. They get less prominent use of the pictures - and, more
importantly, an indication that we are willing to think about what
we're doing rather than just be aggressive Because We Can - and we,
er, still have an encyclopaedic article just a slightly
different-looking one! Win-win.
A situation where neither side gets any of what it
wants cannot
accurately be described as a compromise.
So you perceive the only adequate solution is to cave in to one side
or the other? I would hope the project was willing to at least *aim*
higher...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk