stevertigo wrote:
I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100 posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the opposition was sub-articulate, and whatever substantive criticism there was was largely based in some assumed misconceptions about its scope (Thomas).
Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you? (See your attitude to Cary Bass.) I seem to remember a thread with a very different feel. You had some support from Fred Bauder, who likes the idea of discussing dispute resolution. You had very definite opposition from me. You can call me sub-articulate all you like, but I don't think it will stick.
Anyway, we were talking about an open list for discussing dispute resolution. Its scope will be broad, and its purpose will be to be helpful. It will discuss particular disputes in general, conceptual, and editorial terms, and facilitate immediate on-wiki dispute resolution processes. It will also discuss dispute resolution concepts in general, wherever that goes.
And my point is that your broad brush means the second sentence would self-contradict, in a welter of meddling and advocacy. If that's the intended remit (everything up to and including the kitchen sink) then there was no misunderstanding at all about the scope.
Charles