2009/7/28 stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Thomas
Dalton<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You have to demonstrate that it has been
achieved, usually be giving a
link to the discussion where (almost) everyone was in agreement. All
you had was a mailing list thread where not many people agreed and
very few people participated at all.
Ah. Just looking through the list of current mailing lists:
Checkuser-l, functionaries-l, arbitration-l (sic), mediation-l (sic),
accounts-en-l, OTRS-en-l (also de, fr, etc.) - quite a few private
lists, actually, for such an open project.
I also note lists like daily-image-l and daily-article-l etc. - spam
basically. Greenspun? 25K was enough to get someone's name as a
project and mailing list title? Doesn't look really resonant with the
illustrators, either.
I get the picture, and if there were a relevant substantive point to
be made here it would be something like 'There cannot be a
resolution-l mailing list, regardless of how well-purposed and useful
it will be, simply because we already have so many useless mailing
lists, as well as private ones that people don't have access to.
Would you like a match to set light to that straw man?
And am I to understand that all of these have been
vetted in accord
with the same process you promote? Hm. Links, please.
Several of those were decreed by Jimbo, that is an exception to the
usual rule. Some were created unilaterally by the WMF, also an
exception. Proposals that come from the community, like yours, require
consensus.