geni wrote:
On 11/1/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It would depend on the circumstances of the conflict, wouldn't it? In cases where there's genuine debate going on, it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut it off at some deadline rather than letting it continue until a clear decision is reached. If it stalemates then perhaps a deadline can come into play but it shouldn't be required as a universal solution.
Stalemate is a subjective judement.
So? Subjectivity is going to come into play _somewhere_ in the midst of all this, even if it's in the process of setting up objective standards in the first place.
"Conflict" is not inherently bad, it's part of how disagreements can be resolved.
Heated conflict is.
There's already a very well-established policy against personal attacks, so I don't see how this is relevant. Not all conflict is heated.