geni wrote:
On 11/1/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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.